Thread on record walleye??

[lungdeflator]

Just looking for a thread on the supposed record walleye caught on Rainy River...Story was published in the Bemidji Pioneer Wednesday and they ran a followup today. Fish was supposedly 35" and 24.25" girth, weight tables put it at 17.9 lbs. Local area guide caught it

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100039543/group/Outdoors/

if theres already a thread out there that i missed, sorry didnt mean to start a new thing

[BartmanMN]

I haven't seen that posted any place else. Wow, that is a beast. Congrats to him.

[pushbutton]

Here is the follow up from the Pioneer... click here ...... Jeremy Wade may have to turn the bus around....

[Hoffer]

Holy shnikes!!

[KidMoe]

Awesome Fish!! Congrats to him on a walleye of that quality! and to the doubters... quit complaining and go catch a bigger one.

[Hoffer]

Just read the 2nd article regarding the questions on length. Its too bad he didnt take a pic of the fish on the ruler. I suppose you just want to get it back on the water - but 10 more seconds to get it on the ruler would have been awesome.

[DTro]

18lbs and 2" smaller girth

for comparison

[pushbutton]

Yep, not being a hater, it's just that what are the odds the same guy who holds the world record for hand size also caught the new Minnesota record walleye

[thatoneguy]

if the fish really was that ig, why would he long-arm the photo? great fish, regardless of how big it actually was. can't believe he didn't take 20 seconds to get a pic on a ruler.

[lutzy]

not a chance that is 35"

[pikerliker]

not a chance that is 35"

+1

[paceman]

In that picture the fish doesn't even look 30" to me.

[Alagnak]

Beeeeeeeeeee S. If it was legit you'd have 10 pics of length and girth in 10 seconds and no questions asked. Just another fish story.

[Maverick]

It is a nice fat fish, no doubt about that. I have very large hands and when I measure the width of my four fingers I get around 4 inches. If this guy has bigger hands he might span five inches. Now, I know this is not scientific, but if you measure his hand span in the picture and assume it is 4 inches, then using the same ruler to measure the fish you come up with a 28inch or possibly a 30inch very fat walleye. It could very well be 11 to 12 pounds, but not even possible that it weighs nearly 18 pounds.

If I had to guess, I would say they didn't have a tape measure with them, that is why there is no picture showing the length. The 35 inches had to be an estimate and who knows how they did that.

Very nice fish, but no record, sorry.

PS. If the fishing hall of fame accepts this as a record then we know why the fishing is better in Wisconsin.

[silverbulletguy]

Nice fish either way. I'd like to catch one like that but unless he's a giant I don't think its a record.

[herefish101]

no way in h, e, double hockysticks that fish is 35 inches, DTRO's comparison pic shows it perfectly, look at the distance from the bottom fin to its tail, it looks like a fatty though.

[Stick in Mud]

What do I need to do to get my bull**** fish story published in the newspaper?!?!?

[Hoffer]

Maverick, I agree maybe he didnt have a ruler with him...but dude the guy is a guide. Even every weekend fisherman I know has a measuring device - usually some kind of "stick on" ruler on the side of the boat somewhere or something. I mean this dude being a guide should have something...or at the very least what I have done is measure it against a rod or a net handle and you can go back and look at the pic and then measure the rod or net or whatever and get the length. The only thing that does make me wonder though if it really is legit - is that he is a guide. You would think that anyone who would claim 35 inches and 17 pounds would know that its going to be scrutinized VERY heavily and to even make that claim you would have to be pretty dang confident. Especially a guide. I am not sold either way - I am willing to wait for more info to come out. I have seen many pics that make a big fish look small and a small fish look big. But I just wish he would have got it on some kind of measuring device...anything!! And we wouldnt have so many questions.

[chris63]

I think the fish is 35".If you look at the photo again,measure the baseball cap bill.It comes out to 1.25 inches.Then measure the fish.6.25 inches.We know a standard baseball cap bill is 7 inches thus simple math puts this fish in the photograph at 35 inches!c63

[DTro]

Those two objects are not on the same plane Chris, it doesn't work that way.

Here's what I find very strange. The new record eelpout was caught recently and it was all over the web in a day or two, but a possible record walleye is caught and now we don't hear about it for a few weeks?

Oh, and have you EVER had someone interpret a measurement on a fish as .1"

I've heard of 1/4" increments or even 1/8" but never .1

I almost feel like this is some sort of viral web experiment or something.

[LakeoftheWoods]

"what can I do to get myself $100,000 worth of free promotion to help my guiding out" I know.....make up a talk fish story.

[chris63]

Absolutely does, point of reference.Are you suggesting that he is holding the fish closer to the camera so it "appears"larger than it is?

[chris63]

If you think it doesn't work that way take any photo you have of a fish and check it with the method and see if it isn't accurate to about an inch or so.(Considering your wearing a standard 7 inch bill cap.)c63

[DTro]

Are you suggesting that he is holding the fish closer to the camera so it "appears"larger than it is?

Of course he is, look at his arms, they are not on the same plane as the cap.

[DTro]

How long is this fish Chris?