rumor has it

[Gordie]

that there was a 66lb flat caught in the minn river, well Ill just say south of Jordan a friend of mines brother saw the fish but really didnt get any details as call was dropped and havent been able to contact him yet, I will see him tommarrow and will see what or if any more details on it.

just wondering if anyone heard anything?

AND no I'm not trying to start something.

[mrklean]

was it released?

[ranger20]

ive head of bigger come out of the minnesota by redwood falls but never saw it so who knows

[hanson]

I would sure love to believe all these reports and photos of "possible state record" fish and 60 pounders but I'm still calling [PoorWordUsage] on most of them.

This weeks Outdoor News has a reported 60 pounder on the front cover. No offense to the fisherman but please.

A true, honest 50lb fish is a HUGE fish, I mean HUGE fish. A fish pushing 60lb is a flipping monster around these parts. I know of 2 fish in the upper 50 range that were caught by folks that I would trust my life to and they are big fish, and its dead obvious in the photos.

Here's my reasoning:

1) Not many fisherman have scales that read past 50lbs. So the fish bottomed out a 50lb scale... NICE FISH but that doesn't make it 60lb.

2) Darren's length/girth formula gets into uncharted water with the big fish. Data was based off of many, many, many 20 to mid 40lb fish but not a lot of 50lb plusers made it into the average for obvious reasons, there just aren't a lot caught.

3) Actual method of measurement in itself. You laying a fish on a steel ruler or pulling a flexible tape across it for length? One will obviously read more than another. Same for girth, soft flexible tape or steel tape? One's gonna give you more girth than the other. Just saying measurements can be manipulated a bit in the process and the tools used. How honest are you? Right on the nuts are letting it slip a bit.

Just saying that if you are going to put your face in print with "possible state record" or "60lb plus" flathead next to it with a weight based off a conversion formula, I hope you can take the heat.

I'm off my soapbox, let me have it.

PS... this is coming from a guy who just fished a walleye tourney with an 18-26" protected slot limit. Over 3 days, we measured probably a dozen walleyes within a 1/16" of that 26" mark. If we're recreational fishing, heck yeah... thats a 26" walleye. But when a CO is measuring your fish before you go on stage to weigh, you want NO MISTAKE in that fish making it over the 26" mark. Many fish were let go near that 26" mark because we were honest with ourselves and our measuring ability. There was no room for "close". And I'm not talking an inch or two close, I'm taking a 1/64" close. Tough to do, very tough to do with thousands of dollars on the line but you have to be right or your getting DQ'd and a ticket on top of it.

[Shack]

Elwood knows all. I have even got down wind of this rumor. If true nice fish.

Yep Chris I do agree. I know anyone can get lucky and I am sure there are some major cat guys out their that are not on the forms but let's face it most are. You cruise any stretch of either rivers at 2:00am and if you see another cat guy the chances are good you will know him or know of him/her. Looking back in this forum with all the time put forth and knowledge of flats, no one has broken the 60 mark. Not saying it could not happen and it maybe has to some lurkers, but if it does not have a stamp on it from the some of the people I know, there will always be a “?” Mark on it. IMO. Unless the DNR says other wise.

[rushing]

PS... this is coming from a guy who just fished a walleye tourney with an 18-26" protected slot limit. Over 3 days, we measured probably a dozen walleyes within a 1/16" of that 26" mark. If we're recreational fishing, heck yeah... thats a 26" walleye. But when a CO is measuring your fish before you go on stage to weigh, you want NO MISTAKE in that fish making it over the 26" mark. Many fish were let go near that 26" mark because we were honest with ourselves and our measuring ability. There was no room for "close". And I'm not talking an inch or two close, I'm taking a 1/64" close. Tough to do, very tough to do with thousands of dollars on the line but you have to be right or your getting DQ'd and a ticket on top of it.

Whats this walleye fish you are talking about?

Have you made it out on the river yet?

Get your motor figured out?

[hanson]

Whats this walleye fish you are talking about?

Have you made it out on the river yet?

Get your motor figured out?

Walleye? Its a green fish with a white tip on its tail. Teeth. Good to eat.

River? No

Motor? No

[HotPocket]

Im with you on that fish on the Outdoor News hanson. But still a nice fish.

[hanson]

Im with you on that fish on the Outdoor News hanson. But still a nice fish.

Dang, I had a nice post typed up and hit the wrong key and pooof!

In short, its a very nice fish. No doubt... we know that. We also know it ain't 60lbs. Why sensationalize it? No offense to Outdoor News but if that paper cuts any more pages out of its issue, I'm cancelling. Its been whacked in half from 6 months ago. Times tough for print media?

[carpmanjake]

Originally Posted By: rushing

Whats this walleye fish you are talking about?

Have you made it out on the river yet?

Get your motor figured out?

Walleye? Its a green fish with a white tip on its tail. Teeth. Good to eat.

River? No

Motor? No

i have never seen a green walleye. does it glow too? if it does i probably wouldnt eat it. LOL

[harvey lee]

Who knows, maybe he did catch a huge on. If he did, congrats to him.

I don't like to say how large a fish is when I have not seen it in person. There have been a few times when I caught a fish and stated its size and others saw the picture and told me no way. Well, it was that big.

[Gordie]

yes Hanson you are correct on the formula for cats my cat last year was an impressive 48 3/4 x 31 and the formula for that is 56lbs and it was Dnr weighed at 47lbs on the nose the DNR also took the measurements of the fish. I'm not saying that it didnt happen for this fish of 66lbs but I just heard about it and now I have to get more details on the fish from my friend or his brother I would also like to see the pics of the fish also. and just wondering if anyone heard anything about it because a fish of that size I think would be talked about

[hanson]

I'm not saying that it didnt happen for this fish of 66lbs but I just heard about it and now I have to get more details on the fish from my friend or his brother I would also like to see the pics of the fish also. and just wondering if anyone heard anything about it because a fish of that size I think would be talked about

Yep... you mentioned rumor, I went off on another tangeant. But thats OK. I'm not specifically talking about this fish you heard about but these sudden 60 pounders in general. And you have to be living in a cave if you don't realize that there are more of these 60s than normal being discussed. Is that a fair question? I think it is.

Why is it all of a sudden that these "big fish" are popping up. Thats what I'd like to figure out. Is it a particular year class that hit its peak and people are catching them?? Is it because more people are on the river and fish are being caught that weren't caught before? Is it just the popularity, people are looking for a little ink? There was an article in the Strib about a muskie guide and a 50 pounder even not all that long ago.

I mean if a guy heard of a 60 plus pounder once a summer for years, I'd buy that. But those of us frequenting this forum know that isn't the case. We all know of fish in the 50lb neighborhood but anything over 55lbs is the talk on the street from Bloomington to New Ulm.

[Gordie]

yea I thought about it before I posted it and thought that there sure has been a lot of really,really big fish caught lately. The formula for the one caught in P3 doest even break the 60lb mark but it also shows by the inch no fractions involed. I think that the question you posed is a very fair ? why all of a sudden I think your best answer is people want the ink. and tangents arent always a bad thing, you are getting a very good point across the board. I'm just praying for an honest 50lb fish this year for myself.

[hanson]

I'm just praying for an honest 50lb fish this year for myself.

I'm praying for an honest 50lb fish in my lifetime.

Dean Opatz mentioned the "50lb Club" at a BP Cat League meeting one year and I said I got a 48lb. He said, "That's still not a 50lb". Ouch! 2lbs away and you still aren't in. That's what I'm talking about if you know what I mean.

[Gordie]

only to well do I know what your talking about.

[carpmanjake]

Originally Posted By: elwood

I'm not saying that it didnt happen for this fish of 66lbs but I just heard about it and now I have to get more details on the fish from my friend or his brother I would also like to see the pics of the fish also. and just wondering if anyone heard anything about it because a fish of that size I think would be talked about

Yep... you mentioned rumor, I went off on another tangeant. But thats OK. I'm not specifically talking about this fish you heard about but these sudden 60 pounders in general. And you have to be living in a cave if you don't realize that there are more of these 60s than normal being discussed. Is that a fair question? I think it is.

Why is it all of a sudden that these "big fish" are popping up. Thats what I'd like to figure out. Is it a particular year class that hit its peak and people are catching them?? Is it because more people are on the river and fish are being caught that weren't caught before? Is it just the popularity, people are looking for a little ink? There was an article in the Strib about a muskie guide and a 50 pounder even not all that long ago.

I mean if a guy heard of a 60 plus pounder once a summer for years, I'd buy that. But those of us frequenting this forum know that isn't the case. We all know of fish in the 50lb neighborhood but anything over 55lbs is the talk on the street from Bloomington to New Ulm.

it has been a very good year for fishing. i mean, look at all the hogs in the bass section!

i know the main reason that i am catching more big fish is because i have expanded my boundries and i spent almost the entire winter studying the lakes in the area, finding structure and all that.

who knows. it has been an odd year.

little rain around here, and the temperatures were nowhere near as hot as they were past few years when we had 80s and 90s

its been staying in the 70s and 80s. but i dont think it has hit 90 yet

we all know how temperature effects the fishing. maybe thats all it is. who knows.

[MinnesnowtaWild]

I think it's just more people on the water this year than ever before and that's why we are hearing of these big fish. But Hanson has brought up many good points. Most people, including myself, don't have a scale that goes over 50 lbs. and the length-girth formula is only so accurate and in my experience my fish are always at least a few pounds lighter on my scale. When you get stories of fish over 60 lbs., you pretty much will need a picture as proof and accurate measurements to go with it.

[MinnesnowtaWild]

And for the love of god, I truly hope that people are doing the right thing and releasing these big fish...I definitely have a feeling many 40+ lb fish are being kept this year and it worries me for the future of this fishery. I want to be able to enjoy Flathead Catfishing on the Minnesota River for many, many years and that is why I do my part in releasing every Catfish I have ever caught and encouraging others to do the same (selective harvest is okay for small Channels IMO but leave the Flatheads alone).

[nsnutter]

True that Jeffrey true that. Ultimately it's up to the individual angler's discretion to determine what is kept and what is released, but it will be a sad day when we go out with our kids to hook into some pigs, only to find out there are no more left.

... and if the rumors are true, remarkable! I would love to see a Minnesota flat tip the scales over 60 lbs ... truly a fish - of - a - lifetime!

[DTro]

60 is the new 50

Yeah the conversion formula no doubt could be flawed with fish over 50, only because there just isn’t enough data points to prove it either way. Formulas are only as good as their input and a half inch can make quite a difference. I sure didn’t intend for such a conversion to be gospel and hoped to use it as a tool to help the C&R process. I still think it’s fairly close though as a 50x34 comes in at 66 (I have to think that it’s in the ballpark).

Elwood, those numbers you gave for your fish has me scratching my head. Almost leads me to think that their scale might have been reading low. Which is fine for a contest because it reads low for everyone. That fish should’ve been easily over 50lbs but I guess it’s also possible that the fish didn’t fit the standard body profile. There’s been so many fish in that high 40’s weight that have been witnessed by myself and people I trust with length/girth and a scale that I just have to believe your fish weighed more than that.

A big fish like that will get thrown in the net and on a scale if I catch it. We are talking about weight, so yeah that’s how you get a weight, you weigh it

Hopefully in the next few years we are tossing this discussion around about 70’s.....

[hanson]

60 is the new 50

Sure hope so! That'll mean me getting into the 50 club will be that much easier.

Who's fish was 50 x 34? Is that the rumor Elwood is talking about or just a hypothetical? You wouldn't have to twist my arm very hard to believe 60 plus pounds on dimensions like that. And even if you're measurements had a margin of error +/- an inch or two, say a 48 x 33 or 49 x 32, you are still up there in very big fish land.

2 big varying factors that I can see on big fish would be pre-spawn vs post-spawn. Good girth measurement and the formula should account for that however. And whether that 60 pounder just ate a 5 lb carp.

[DTro]

What I meant was that the formula puts a 50x34 fish at 66lbs which seems ballparkish

[hanson]

What I meant was that the formula puts a 50x34 fish at 66lbs which seems ballparkish

I re-read it, thats what I thought you meant. I do agree that seams appropriate.

[Scott K]

Gordie, I have heard of such fish, and have reason to doubt it. An actual witness that seen the fish caught, estimated high 30's, to low 40's. Iffin we ware talking about a fish caught last Sunday just upstream from where you seen me and my son a couple weeks ago.