If you caught a new state record ..........

[Fish Chris]

ya' know, things would be different here in Cali. Reason being, to get a new Cali state record, but to miss the new World record, you would have to hit a very narrow window, of less than 1 lb. Knowing what I know, about how possible (if not likely) it is to release a big fish., and then re-catch it at a later date, I would probably weigh it on my own personal certified scale, take some good self photos, and release it "without state record certification", because a WRB a year from now, is an infinitely bigger deal than any state record will ever be !

Now, it would be hard to "not" show off a catch like this....... So I might fib a little, and just claim it was a really nice 19 lb'er..... and I'm alrerady a pro at taking photos with indistinguishable backgrounds :-) I'd just let them "mistakenly" believe where they thought I caught it :-)

Then, when I caught her again next year, it would be on !!! :-)

Peace,

Fish

[KU_Bassmaster.]

I'm alrerady a pro at taking photos with indistinguishable backgrounds :-) I'd just let them "mistakenly" believe where they thought I caught it :-)

Like this ;D ;D ;D

[Low_Budget_Hooker]

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.

Everyone I would tell already fishes there with me.  Telling fish/game would be the same as telling the local news. Nooo thank you.

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.

Seriously?

I mean,..that thing is worth potential money if you handle it right.  I'm willing to give up the cash to keep my place from getting invaded.  To not submit it because it's a "Hassle"????  That's crazy.

[ncxj]

If I ever caught a WR bass... Id take a few pictures with it then eat it and wrap the head in tinfoil. Then years from now show my grandkids and it would be found many years after I died and then there would be a big controversy about what the world record fish was and my name would forever be remembered by anglers everywhere!

Seriously if I was to catch the state record bigmouth I would have to consider where I was fishing and how secret I would like to keep it.  Most of the places I fish are ponds and I would never expect a record fish out of one anyways. But if by some stroke of luck I caught such a fish in one I would turn it in because very few people now of, or would be able to fish these ponds.

[Keithscatch]

I vote yes becasuse it benefits the state not just me. I still get the accolades but the state also gets notiriety. Hey I used to fish Lake Fork allot and never caught anything close to the state record there. So why do you think just because people know that a lake has (or had depending on if the fish is released or not) a state record that they will catch it?

I hope someday that it matters. Until then we can only be so lucky.

[abelfisher]

I definitely would!  Fishing is my passion.  Granted I know I am not anywhere near as good as most on this board.  I fish mainly for the serenity of it all.  However, if I caught a SR I would go to the trouble of certifying it as I could then make my mark on the sport of fishing.  

Now if I acaught a WR, I wouldfind a way to make enough to retire and fish as often as possible.  Selfish?  You bet!  

[roadwarrior]

Wow!

You Kansas boys need to come down here on a vacation.

[basser89]

This is a tough one for me. Right now, I'm undecided. Here's why......

Two years ago, while fishing with my partner, he landed a state record musky. Now here's where it gets complicated. The current state record tiger musky is held by an angler that was from Williamsport, MD. The closest certification site to us was, well, you guessed it, in Williamsport. Now my partner caught a pure strain which you could clearly tell from the markings. He took it in and had to wait for DNR to show up for the certification. While he was waiting, a HUGE crowd gathered in this small tackle shop and the rumors started flying from there! They were saying everything from it was a tiger (which for some reason, the current tiger record is larger than the pure strain) to he gaffed it (which would disqualify it from being a state record) as well as he and I work for DNR. Rumors continued and my partner and his wife were harrassed (including phone calls) and we even heard that a petition was started to try and have it overturned. This all still baffles me to this day since "thier" precious tiger record was still intact! Musky fishing in MD is not anyway near as popular as bass (I think catfishing is even more popular according to a DNR pole I saw) so I can hardly even begin to imagine what might go on I were to land the next state record bass here, go through all the proper qualifications by the state and so on and so on. I just don't know if the money (if any) would compensate for the possible harrassment.  :-/

[Hale]

IF????????

I WILL be catching Florida's next state record. You guys will see me on the cover of the mag grinning ear to ear - selling out (or as I like to refer to it - BUYING IN). I figure this way I dont need to tell anyone about the record...they will already know!.

And like I always tell my fishing partners, "Im just one cast away from setting the record"

[jayhawkfishin]

Wow!

You Kansas boys need to come down here on a vacation.

Want to.

[BassKing813]

I voted yes but I kind of have mixed feelings. It would be cool to get it certified, but I might not want to go through the hassle. Guess I'll cross that bridge when I get there, if I get there. A state record would be pretty tough.

[Koikus]

If the game ranger has a set of certified scales with him and is willing to come to the lake I'm fishing, I would do it for sure. However, if getting Ms. Lunker certified would kill her, then no way, but you can bet I'd be getting LOTS of pictures, including at least one of the fish hanging on my scales with the weight discernable. Oh, and don't forget about getting all the big one's measurements so I could get a replica put on the wall!

[Koikus]

OOOPs. I was specifically refering to Largemouth Bass in my previous post. I wouldn't feel too bad about killing some of the junkier species if it meant fame and glory, ha. I once caught a Yellow Bullhead Catfish outta my lake that would have possibly made it as an OK state record...it was just over 2 pounds. But at the time I was ignorant about state records. What I discovered about 2 or 3 years later was that there was no record even recorded for that species in OK. The info I read stated that it would take a 2# Yellow to even be considered. I had it, but I let fame and glory slip away, lol! That's okay, I'm holdin' out for the new state record Black Bass....dream on, dream on!

[dink]

For the record, I am a devout C & R follower.

Although.....

I have always been under the impression that a state record class fish is in the waning years of its life (bass specifically).  Thus, keeping such a fish would not negatively affect the overall genetic quality of the lake or river.

As far as invasion of your little piece of paradise, if you tell even one person or show just one picture of such a fish, word will get out and the invasion will be inevitable.  We are all fishermen here... we know how it works.  It may take a little longer, but will happen nonetheless.  Yet, as with all hype, it will eventually die.

So, I voted YES.  After all is said and done, it is as cool as that trophy you won't throw away..... because it is memories!

[Matt Fly]

All those big fish caught in Cali hasn't seemed to hurt fishing, and talk about small waters, Lake Dixon is what? 70 acres.

I still haven't figured out why killing a record bass would need to be done.   A couple of xrays would show if any foriegn objects present.

Texas didn't kill its State Record.

Hookem

Matt

[senile1]

I voted yes.  The lakes that I fish are large enough and have enough popularity that it wouldn't make much of a difference in the lake traffic.  Truman Lake and Lake of the Ozarks are already known as places to catch larger bass in Missouri.  And Smithville Lake is already covered with heavy traffic because of its proximity to Kansas City.  

[Rattlinrogue]

Yes I would want to be recognized as the state record holder.As for a ton of bassers fishing it out,we have a slot limit(16-22 inches) that has and will continue to make and keep our lake a lunker lake.When you load up your boat you're checked for illegal bass and the fine is pretty stiff.Besides most people I talk to say you can't catch any bass on my home lake.You really have to know where to look for them and most of these so called bassin' "pros" that show up from time to time just beat the banks all day.They're not even warm.

[TaylorW]

i probably wouldnt, but on the other hand i dont even know what to do if i cought the record fish, do you have to keep it and take it to someone to approve it or something, that would be kinda hard for me cause my boat doesnt have a live well. :-[