Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
buddha

Huge Walleye in Outdoor News

48 posts in this topic

Was I the only one that was surprised to see a 37" eye come from Mille Lacs? Was it a misprint? If not there is the state record as soon as the gal puts on the feed bag. I am not calling that gal who caught the fish a liar, I have never heard of one that large come out of ML or even anywhere? Anyone have the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen a pic, but I googled it and found on another site it says 37" 12lb fish. I'm guessing that is a 27" fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard this too. Apparently I have seen no picture so far except reading claims by several people who have seened this fish. It was said the fish was skinny and didnt look the length of 37".

Well anything can be until someone valid actually unveils the real story. Until then its just a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen a pic, but I googled it and found on another site it says 37" 12lb fish. I'm guessing that is a 27" fish.

I guess it's a double misprint then, because a 27" fish isn't going to be 12lbs whistle .......but neither is a 37 grin

Outdoor News?

Did Gary Clancy measure it?? grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a pic handy but the fish did look very nice. I'm guessing it was a typo. A fish that large anywhere in MN would have raised a big media circus, even if it didn't have the weight to be a state record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I was thinking why was it in the middle of the paper? If it was 37 in wouldn't it be on the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see that article by Dennis Anderson in the Strib about faulty DNR rulers? They later found out that their ruler was off on length and was likely altered by someone. But then their problem was opposite, they thought they had 17" walleyes and really they were 18"s. Anyway agreed, there is something fishy about a 12 lb 37" walleye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I had the pleasure of seeing a 11.2 29"er last year that I could never imagine being any more fatter than it already was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at the picture and the body really does not look very big. I think we have a typo and a little fudging on the weight. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say there is no way a walleye of 37" could only be 12 lbs i have one on my wall that is 31" and it only was 12.6 lbs so if this is true i would have to say that fish would be in the 18-25 lbs class and with all the eye's i have seen the biggest being a 33" 14.9 lbs i have to say no way this has any merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Sandmannd
Haven't seen a pic, but I googled it and found on another site it says 37" 12lb fish. I'm guessing that is a 27" fish.

I guess it's a double misprint then, because a 27" fish isn't going to be 12lbs whistle .......but neither is a 37 grin

Outdoor News?

Did Gary Clancy measure it?? grin

If Gary Clancy measured it I'm sure its the truth! No doubt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get what you guys are talking about i catch 37" eyes all the time its a hobby of mine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0