Incredible catch and release line class record caught on three different baits .

[Randall]

I was reading the post about the catch and release line class record in Colorado and it reminded me of my favoite line class record I had ever heard of. It was caught in Florida and first said to be caught on a paddletail bait. Then it was reported to be caught on a Castaic Catch 22. Well I guess you can mess up and mis identifiy a swimbait. But how would you set the hook on the bait with four pound line? Well at that point I called BS on it and angered a whole group of this guys buddys on another forum. Then another problem came up and when this guy was fishing in a tournament I was fishing in and something just didn't seem right to me with this fish and where it was reported to be caught at. The guy who runs the tournament made a ruling and the guy was following the rules in this case according to the director and that was good with me but the guys got mad at me again and the attacks flew from his buddys.

Well this is why I put no credibility into IGFA line class records. http://www.bountyfishing.com/thread/new-igfa-lmb-florida-state-line-record Look down the thread and read where he says he is sending photos to his SWIMBAIT company. At this time an article was written and the bait was a Mann's paddletail bait if I remember what was told to me about it but it sure wasn't a Castaic bait. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/sep/24/bigbass/ ;D

Well a little time goes by and all of the sudden Castaic has claim to the line class record as well. The fish was caught in September but the bait it was caught on wasn't released until November. :  But nobody from Castaic would confirm he was on the prostaff and even had the baits in September. : another site reported on it and listed the bait as a Catch 22.

Well here I am today looking for the info online to send to Paul Roberts to read and lookie what I find. ;D http://zoombait.com/2009/12/zoom_horny-toad-state-record-bass-in-florida/ Yep that's right looks like old Drew done got one over on Zoom it seems as well. Bet he got a 100 packs of toads for that one. Now the question is how many bait companys have been told that there bait caught the record? ;D

Well if the guy will do all this and you have to just go on his and his buddy's word that the fish was caught on four pound line and it weighed 13lbs then what do the CR records mean anyway. They don't mean nothing to me because too many people can lie about them with a buddy as a witness. Well now I got to go send an email to Zoom and send them a link to the articles and tell them they have been had. ;D

Just incase you missed it here is my favorite quote from Drew.

the best thing for me is i push the news out to every manufacturer for the equip i use. Star Rods (plasma) will send me a new rod upon seeing a copy of the cert. my swimbait company will send me a box of lures, ande will send me tons of line, dont know what heritae kayaks will do but i will ask for something. as i am a bit of a lure addict my wife just talked to me about getting some of the garage space back, as my stuff is all over every wall of the garage categorized by company and lure design. poles everywhere it is an obsession.. as i am sure you know!!!!!

[Paul Roberts]

Nice research Randall. Sucks to have to do it, doesn't it?

Seems the more records I look into, the weirder it all gets. A few that come to mind: the WR brown trout (I believe Kent knows the particulars), the triploid 40#rainbows, the guy who snagged the huge CA bass, the NYS record steelhead (if it still holds -26lbs) was a naturally sterile fish that never matured or made a spawning run. I know the reprehensible BS is the real point here, and not all the above are BS -but underlying this I think is the fact that records are getting tougher to break, requiring rarer and rarer fish to meet them. And rarer and rarer egos maybe?

I really do appreciate hearing about a lot of the CA guys who fish for the sport, the experience, and release those monster with a satisfied smile and no claim to a record. That's as cool as it gets.

I don't have a problem with records, or even egos. It's the lying. Good for you for saying what needs to be said. Sorry you have to take the crap for doing so.

[Sweetwater]

My, my, my, what a tangled web we weave.

[roadwarrior]

There is a new brown trout record set in Michigan:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/58634057.html

The previous record, which was "caught" on the

Little Red River in Arkansas, is the one Paul was

referring to. Without going into all the details,

the fish was planted. Broodstock-->White River

(electroshock)-->Red River. Amazingly the trout

was caught right next to a new resort/ housing

complex owned by "well connected" investors.

[Paul Roberts]

That's a big brown. Lake MI is the place. That fish is likely legit...but from my experience with Lake Ontario spawning runs, MANY big trout and salmon were snagged, not angled for. Snagging and "lifting" (the hidden mock-angling version) was rampant in my day, the lure of BIG fish and the bragging rights that went with were simply too much for many if not most. Maybe this is where my peeve stems; I just hated seeing the lying, and the denigration of the sport, as well as simply having entire sections of stream blown while snaggers waded kicked and chased perfectly catchable fish : >

[Bass_Akwards]

The anglers who lie about their records are annoying enough, but the fact that all these departments actually just give the records to these morons without anything but their word is even more stupid. 

I mean guess what?  I caught a 37 inch LMB out of a 5 acre pond here in Boulder, and that was just hours after I shot a 59 on the toughest golf course in Colorado.  There, now that I said it, IT MUST BE TRUE RIGHT!?  Gimme a break.

You should never be able to have ANY record without SOME sort of proof to make it legitimate.  This is why Guiness sends people out to watch record setters and attempters(not a word) do their thing, sometimes for hours on end.

It's beyond me how anyone could ever own a "record", especially an important, documented one, without witnesses, pictures, etc.  The whole thing is really dumb if you ask me. 

If we have to have a "weight record" weighed on specific certified scales, there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't have to have other potential records measured lengthwise by a certified tape measure.  This way, whichever employee who measures it, can be another witness, just like with the person who weighs the bass on a certified scale. I mean how many certified scales can there be that people take monster fish to in their respective areas?  Not many I'd guess.  So everyone who has a certified scale should also have a darn tape measure too.

[WRB]

When you discuss record fish it can become a Pandora's box in a hurry. Just consider the Perry bass for example and arguments start and tempers flare.

State records and line class records are clouded in more innuendo and finger pointing. Throw in lure manufacture claims based on anglers submitting catches for free lures and you start digging a deeper hole. Ever try to verify a local lake record? Now that can take some time and uncover a lot of different claims.

The old saying "All fisherman are liars, except me and you, and I'm sure about you", is as true today as it was 100 years ago.

Just trying to get a few bass validated years after they were caught, with pictures and witness statements, has become more of a hassle then it's worth. My advice; catch the trophy fish, enjoy the moment. If you choose to share it, be ready for both praise and criticism.

WRB

[Paul Roberts]

To be fair, the problem for state record keeping is that it's about public relations. State fisheries departments tend to be low budget operations -and this is especially so for CO, and even more so for our warmwater unit. Also, most people, anglers included, do not understand how easily distorted photos can be -just an inch from the lens this way or that affects our impression greatly. Photos are simply NOT accurate evidence. But to get a photo of a fish on a tape is asking too much. I think fisheries units, for C&R entries, are doing what they can. I would rather have the C&R records available to foster that kind of thinking than not, and just be ready to roll my eyes when I see a 28" LM or 58" tiger (hybrid) musky.

What Randall brings in is the monetary incentives to lie that exist. From what I read, (and this may or may not be true) that potential WR LM that was foul hooked from CA might have been entered, if someone hadn't seen it and called them on it.

Don't see another way around the present systems in place. Maybe IGFA could handle records for states, and magazines, and clubs, ... ?? :-/ Nope. No one could pass the stress tests required. It's a believer's beware kinda thing.

On this board anyway, members seem to be pretty hip to the lens distortion in photos, and BS doesn't get too far. That in itself is pretty cool.

[WRB]

Having fished through the million dollar WR bass days with magazine contests offering $$$$$$$$$$$ awards, I can give you first accounts of rampant cheating going on. Money often brings out the worst behavior in fisherman.

Today's big bass catches are not at the forefront they were when the big bucks were being promised. To make money on a record bass catch, the angler will need to be a good marketeer or have help marketing the catch. Manubu Kurita's new world record bass is proof of today's market place; he has received very little money for his catch.

If memory serves me, there was a reported new world record rainbow trout caught in B.C. Canada last year, what happened with that catch? You would think that the tackle manufacturer's would be having full page color ads in all the magazines for all these new fresh water world records; LMB, brown trout and rainbow trout are prime market fish.

WRB

[Bass_Akwards]

Getting a photo of a fish near a tape measure is asking to much? I really disagree.

They make it a huge hassel for people to have a state record fish recorded by weight, and they should do the same thing with length records. If you dont have a tape measure with you, then you don't have a record period. If you forgot your tape measure, you lose unless you can get it to a person with a tape measure. Simple. Is that a pain in the butt? Maybe, but tough cookies. It's better than taking lyers words for it.

You can't lens distort a fish laying next to a tape measure. I guess if you're really good at photoshop you can cheat your butt off but that's some pretty pro photoshop work. Regular pictures can be distorted, but not of the fish next to a tape measure.

If you want a length record, then at very least have a tape measure and a camera with you at all times. I'd give 100x more credit and merit to a guy who has a photo of him and the bass as well as a photo of the bass next to a tape measure, than some toolbag who just says "I caught a 33 inch LMB here in Colorado"

If I have to darn near kill a 13 pound bass to have it weighed on a certified scale by dragging it in a cooler to a local post office or whatever, then it shouldn't be that big of a hassel for a fisherman to at very least get a descent photo of his catch next to a darn tape measure. There's only a couple certified scales near every lake, that people traditionally go to get their fish weighed on if they happen to catch a monster. The same people with certified scales need to have tape measures to measure the bass as well.

Lastly Paul, you had mentioned "On this board anyway, members seem to be pretty hip to the lens distortion in photos, and BS doesn't get too far. That in itself is pretty cool."

From the sounds of it, this happens a lot on this board. Is that true? People on this board busting other people for purposly distorting photos and lying about weights? I'd love to see some of those threads.

[Paul Roberts]

I suppose a photo on a tape would be easy enough. One of those fabric sewing tapes that fold or roll up would be perfect.

I don't see people "busting" others very often, but corrections are made here and there. Everytime someone posts a "How big was it??" post, the subject comes up about how cameras are poor at documentation, and then..."Get a scale, dude."

More particularly I was referring to the specific threads about this that have come up. Maybe I'm aware of them bc I've been involved in them. Do you think you see many that could use correction, and don't get it?

BTW: The best way to judge a bass' size in a photo is by looking at the angler's hands. It's a real giveaway. It's tough to keep one's hands and fingers outta the way. The images I "distrust" the most are those who are practiced at hiding the hands. In-Fisherman folks are experts. There are a lot of 3 and 4 lb bass in there that look like 8s.

We used to joke about the early photos that used wide lenses to purposely distort, re-naming the angler's Bill "Big Hands" Dance, and Al "Popeye" Lindner, etc... . ;D

[Matt Fly]

Lastly Paul, you had mentioned "On this board anyway, members seem to be pretty hip to the lens distortion in photos, and BS doesn't get too far. That in itself is pretty cool."

From the sounds of it, this happens a lot on this board. Is that true? People on this board busting other people for purposly distorting photos and lying about weights? I'd love to see some of those threads.

I find it funny that those that bust others chops or have are some of the same that photoshop their own pictures.

We have had guys call others out for no distorted lense, only cause there was a green tree on the hill side in Oklahoma and some green rye grass in the back ground in Jan. So theres now way that bass was caught during that time frame. LOL So he's a liar.

[WRB]

I found this scale last year;

http://www.jscale.com/product/_ultrasport_series.html

Back in the 70's & 80's I had a yard stick screwed to the deck and just laid the bass next to it for a photo, work good. Back then I used the brass Chatillon 25 lbs spring scale in 2 oz increments, accurate enough for my use.

Today the compact UltraSport 30 works good for me and it can be certified by the local weights and measure people. Now I just need to be able to catch a new PB and use the new tools; scale and digital camera, that is easier said than done.

WRB

[Paul Roberts]

Lastly Paul, you had mentioned "On this board anyway, members seem to be pretty hip to the lens distortion in photos, and BS doesn't get too far. That in itself is pretty cool."

From the sounds of it, this happens a lot on this board. Is that true? People on this board busting other people for purposly distorting photos and lying about weights? I'd love to see some of those threads.

I find it funny that those that bust others chops or have are some of the same that photoshop their own pictures.

We have had guys call others out for no distorted lense, only cause there was a green tree on the hill side in Oklahoma and some green rye grass in the back ground in Jan. So theres now way that bass was caught during that time frame. LOL So he's a liar.

People are getting pretty sophisticated with reading photographic images. I guess those that keep records lists should get caught up. I like the tape measure requirement idea.

I've occasionally noticed stuff like that too -things out of place. I rarely say anything. I tend to just roll my eyes. :

[Paul Roberts]

I found this scale last year;

http://www.jscale.com/product/_ultrasport_series.html

Back in the 70's & 80's I had a yard stick screwed to the deck and just laid the bass next to it for a photo, work good. Back then I used the brass Chatillon 25 lbs spring scale in 2 oz increments, accurate enough for my use.

Today the compact UltraSport 30 works good for me and it can be certified by the local weights and measure people. Now I just need to be able to catch a new PB and use the new tools; scale and digital camera, that is easier said than done.

WRB

I'm still using a 25yr old Chatillon. "Only" weighs to 10lbs though LOL. If I catch a state record, I'll never actually know. I'll post a pic of the scale floored. ;D

I also paint dots every inch on all my rods, using phosphorescent vinyl fabric paint. They only go to 24inches on my bass rods. Haven't broken that yet. Jees, if that 28" CO fish turns out to be true, I'll have to add a few inches.

[WRB]

My son gave me a fisherman scale that is 18" long with measurements to 36" ( 1/2 scale). This should work well for you in CO!

Tom

[J Francho]

My son gave me a fisherman scale that is 18" long with measurements to 36" ( 1/2 scale). This should work well for you in CO!

Tom

That is awesome, LOL.  Great gift!  Your son has a good sense of humor.

[Paul Roberts]

My son gave me a fisherman scale that is 18" long with measurements to 36" ( 1/2 scale). This should work well for you in CO!

Tom

You'll make a liar out of yet. Jeesh, with friends like you... ;D

[Mattlures]

I caught the world record goldfish and I drove it to the fish and game biologist and let certify it. I also had him fill out my IGFA aplication. I had no problems with that. If I ever caught the WR bass I would call the DFG and have them come out and certify it. If I catch a lake record and I decide to report it, I will bring it into the ranger and let them verify it. I dont think it is that hard to certify a fish if you have nothing to hide.

WRB case is a different story though. Trying to certify a fish that was caught 20 years ago could not be easy. However I would still try and jump through the hoops because I think it would be awsome to have a top 25 bass. That is my lifetime bass goal.

Get it done Tom

[Paul Roberts]

You have the WR goldfish?? Are any fish food companies aware of this?? ;D (Couldn't resist).

[Mattlures]

Nope I didnt even call the local paper. Its cool but not much af an acomplishment.