Super User KU_Bassmaster. Posted July 19, 2006 Super User Posted July 19, 2006 This is a question I have been asking myself the past few weeks or so and I can't come up with a conclusion. On one hand I think it would be cool to make your mark on the record books, plus it would be GREAT to de-throne my high school Biology teacher who holds the Kansas record for Largemouth. : But ......... That fish is sure to get some publicity and the lake you caught the bass out of will surely have fishing pressure sky rocket .... possibly ruining your favorite place to fish. A double-edged sword. :-/ Quote
jayhawkfishin Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 You can always say you caught it in a private pond. Have the benifits without having your lake get stormed with people. Or maybe you could just disclose the lake info. Quote
CJ Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I would get it certified.I wouldn't be worried about my lake getting pressured,its big enough,I would have to keep my mouth shut about the area.It may sound bad but if I broke the record I would try my best to fully benefit from it......cuz I am a poor boy with a family. Quote
Super User roadwarrior Posted July 19, 2006 Super User Posted July 19, 2006 Well, I voted "yes", but I probably was thinking of something else... If it was a green fish, I probably would not go through all the trouble involved, but I might. Now, if it's a brown fish, then that's another story. Technically, an 11 lb 15 1/2 oz smallmouth would become the Tennessee State Record. The current record is the World Record, 11 lb 15 oz. To be recognized by the IFGA, a new WR must weigh 2 oz more than the current record. So, for example, although 12 lb would be a State Record and the largest smallmouth ever caught, it would NOT be recognized as the WR. Does that make any sense? When I catch that bass, we're going to have a fight! Quote
Super User Matt Fly Posted July 19, 2006 Super User Posted July 19, 2006 Dustin, Don't know about Kansas as being a bass state, but that "new State Record" in Texas would be worth lots of money. For all the money we have invested over the years, some more than others due to age, re-cooping some of that expense would be nice. You see possible negative actions occurring if it does happen. What about postitives. It could cause the state to become more conscientious, invest more money in stocking programs, more knowlegde available to the non-fishing types due to press. What would that bass due for your college fishing team? Our state has grown so much in the terms of popularity in bass fishing, that was done through anglers, programs, SAL program, and educating the old and new on catch and release. Not too mention some good biologists. Last thing, puttting your name in the Kansas record books is something your grandkids will see, you might inspire them also. 18.18lbs sure did open doors for Barry St.Clair who was fishing for crappie, and his name will be there in the top 50 after I'm dead and gone for years to come. Alway been my goal to get into the top 25 to make my mark stand for years. Quote
Valascus Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I voted yes for the some of the reasons Matt stated. It's something that fellow anglers and family members will see for generations to come. I believe that if you catch a state (or world) record you should be recognized for the skill, patience, and knowledge required to locate, fight, catch, and properly catalog a record fish. Quote
sodaksker Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I would think I would, but by nature I am lazy. If it was not too much work, I think I would. :-/ Quote
Super User 5bass Posted July 19, 2006 Super User Posted July 19, 2006 I would certify it.....because in circles of bass fisherman,that may be the only way anybody would believe you. ;D Quote
Guest the_muddy_man Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Yea but the chances of me catching the PA Record Bass are as about as much as a cowboy and a convent dweller SLIM AND NUN Quote
Pond Hopper Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Yes thats a no brainer. especially beings almost everything I fish is private. The compensation would be nice too. Corey Quote
RiskKid. Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 No doubt I would but first I have to work less, fish more and keep on dreamin! Quote
Low_Budget_Hooker Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I voted no. That lake is mine and I ain't sharin' unless you're on MY boat,lol. Quote
Bassassasin12 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I voted yes because it would open up a lot more oppurtunities as far as fishing goes. Also it's always great to have the bragging rights. Quote
Captain Cali Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I have no clue what I would do. Official California state record is what... 21-12? I would first need to change my shorts! Quote
Guest avid Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Why wouldn't you? Your going to be telling everyone you know about it anyway, might as well call the state fish&game and have them certify it. Quote
tipptruck1 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I voted yes. Its real hard to get a record fish here is wi. The only records that change are the salmon and trout records. They change about every few years due to people fishing lake michigan. But you also need the person that vertify the weight to fill out the app for a state record. the state record small and large mouth havent change in over 55 years. so if i caught a state record i wouold fill out the fourm and get it weighted. Quote
Troutfisher Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Why wouldn't you? Your going to be telling everyone you know about it anyway, might as well call the state fish&game and have them certify it. Agreed. Quote
senko_77 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 you better beleive I would because if I break my state record, then I have the new world record. 1 Quote
Whopper-Stopper Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I voted no. It would be cool to have my name in the record book, but that is all it is. It is just your name typed in the state record section of the fishing guide. I guess it would be kind of cool, but that isn't the reason why I fish. I'm not fishing to break any records. I fish because I learn something new and exciting every day that I'm on the water. The whole learning experience is what is important to me. Quote
Super User KU_Bassmaster. Posted July 19, 2006 Author Super User Posted July 19, 2006 I guess I am a bit suprised at these numbers. I thought "yes" would be the majority, but not by this overwhelming amount. I still don't know what I would do, but slightly lean towards "no". Of course it's easy to say that right now. I guess it would be different in everybody's situation. There are a couple reasons I lean towards no. First, most of the bodies of water I fish on a regular basis are less than 1000 acres and the majority of them are under 300. They have just about all the fishing pressure they can handle right now as it is. If I fished HUGE bodies of water like CJ mentioned I might be more apt to go through with getting it certified. Next, bass fishing here in Kansas is just not the big of deal like it is in the southern states like Matt mentioned. You would probably get a small article in the paper and maybe a small clip on the news and that's probably about it. I don't really think their would be much of a monetary gain. If I lived somewhere where that might be a possiblity, it could probably change my mind. And yes, if it was a WR of anykind I would submit it. Quote
Cajun1977 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 i vote yes i dont beleive anyone when they say no if your holding a new state record and you know it come on stop trying to be civil about it your still catch and releasing he didnt say keep it anyway ku i thought a while back you made a remark about the only fish you would keep are a world record and a state record am i correct? Quote
Super User KU_Bassmaster. Posted July 19, 2006 Author Super User Posted July 19, 2006 ku i thought a while back you made a remark about the only fish you would keep are a world record and a state record am i correct? Maybe ;D ;D Like I said, this is something I have been thinking about quite a bit these past few weeks. I go back and forth and can't really give a set in stone answer. :-/ But like you said, things might be a whole lot different when/if you are actually holding a state record fish in your hand. And senko77 ..... I hope you would. Quote
Guest DavidGreen Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 KU_Bassmaster, I would definitely.. Some of the KS state records... Bass, Largemouth Kenneth M. Bingham, Topeka 11 lbs., 12 oz. - 25" March 20, 1977 - Farm pond, Jefferson County Spining rod & reel with minnow Bass, Smallmouth Jason Heis, Salina 6.68 lbs. - 22 1/2 inches August 15, 2004 - Milford Reservoir Rod and reel with plastic worm Bass, Spotted (Kentucky) Clarence E. McCarter, Wichita 4 lbs., 7 oz. - 18 1/2 " April 16, 1977 - Marion County Lake Fly rod with medium popper I spent 2 seasons on Marion County Lake chasing that record and came close with a 4lb, on a 3X white weightless Zulu. Tight Lines!!! Quote
Other. Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 How do you do that whole state record thing? How long does it take. I voted no because it just seems so much of a hassel. I would rather keep the fish weigh it and take a picture of it on the scale as that my only proff. Quote
Super User KU_Bassmaster. Posted July 19, 2006 Author Super User Posted July 19, 2006 No need to show me that list Reel_Mech. I have a note card with all the records with me at all times while fishing ........ just in case. Like I said also, it really chaps my butt that my high school Biology teacher holds the KS record largemouth. What's even worse is that he was crappie fishing. > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.