Thread on record walleye??

[Grum]

"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.

Thats what I was thinking.. any publicity is good publicity, especially Free publicity!

oh, and nice fish too

[harvey lee]

I have no idea what size this fish is. I do know that I once caught a very nice flathead and 2 people on HSO questioned its size and they said no way it could have measured that.

Well, it did so I do not put much if any stock in when others question a fish's length or size. One can really not tell by a picture. My fish was not as big as I stated due to the fact that my hands were not large enough in the fish,s mouth. LIke they measured my hands and fingers.

So, I would say we need to very very careful when we questions anothers fish for size. I am not going to question the guys fish since I was not there.

[chris63]

About 52.5 inches?

[chris63]

Am I even in the ballpark?

[thatoneguy]

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

Um, you do know that would only work if the fish and the cap were the exact same distance away from the camera, on the same plane, at the same angle, right?

[pushbutton]

Doubt Dtro's fish is even 35....probably just a hair over 31

[DTro]

OK, so Don obviously cared about the size of this fish as he called the DNR about it being a possible record and also submitted to the IGFA for a line class record.

Given that fact, he needed to be more responsible in documenting the size of he fish. A semi decent picture with a pinkie swear story isn't good enough TO BE CONSIDERED A RECORD.

Fish stories are fish stories and that is a very nice (fish of a lifetime) walleye. But, if he really wants the recognition of a record he needed ruler shots, plain and simple. With the technology we have today, it's so very easy to document your catch.

[DTro]

Am I even in the ballpark?

Not even close

[chris63]

This is just an estimate from the information given.I realize it isn't exact science but an estimate.What else do we have to estimate the reference point?A persons hand is hard to judge length.Again this isn't exact,just a reference point. c63

[harvey lee]

OK, so Don obviously cared about the size of this fish as he called the DNR about it being a possible record and also submitted to the IGFA for a line class record.

Given that fact, he needed to be more responsible in documenting the size of he fish. A semi decent picture with a pinkie swear story isn't good enough TO BE CONSIDERED A RECORD.

Fish stories are fish stories and that is a very nice (fish of a lifetime) walleye. But, if he really wants the recognition of a record he needed ruler shots, plain and simple. With the technology we have today, it's so very easy to document your catch.

I agree with that 100% but, it does not mean that his fish was not what he reported. It only means he did not meausre it with enough proof to have it recorded as a record.

I realize some will stretch the truth about fish size but who is going to be the one to know for sure and call him a liar?

[chris63]

What was the cats length?

[DTro]

Here's a better way to do it. Again if documentation is important

Here's the same fish

[chris63]

I was wrong thanks for the clarification.c63

[Hoffer]

C63 thats a refreshing thing to hear on this site. You dont hear "I was wrong" very much.

Thanks.

[Hoffer]

PS

Dtro,

I postt this in fun. And I will just stir the pot a bit.

But I dont think the pic of the fish on the ruler is the same fish that is in the earlier pic where you are holding it.

On the first picture the bottom half of the tail either has some "nodules" or growths on the tail...quite a few. OR it could be sand or something sticking on the tail. But it looks to me like some kind of "growths".

In any case on the close up shot - the bottom half of the tail (same side showing as well) looks super clean. There is nothing there. So, either it was sand and you slipped the fish in the water and it washed off before the 2nd pic....or the nodules somehow disappeared or somethings not right

Again, I post this as fun...just a little pot stirring!!

[DTro]

I think the bottom line is that a picture holding a fish can only be a reference as to the size of it. Angles of photos play a huge role in how it appears. The only people that know 100% are the people that were there to see it first hand.

When you make a claim as to it being the biggest walleye ever caught in MN then you should not only be prepared for scrutiny, you should also have something other than "your word" to back up your claim.

[DTro]

Do you think I placed that tree seed perfectly in both pics? It's simple crop of the first pic

Oh I see what you mean different fish.

Hmmm, well I can tell you it was the only fish I caught in 12 hours (3 of that in the pouring rain). So that is all I have to go by.

[Hoffer]

Additionally, on a catfish where the meaty portion of the tail ends and the back fins starts there is a little ridge that goes down. After that ridge there is a "half moon" of lighter colored area that extends into the fin where it then turns darker for the rest of the fin. In the first pic - particularly on the bottom half of the fin that "half moon" lighter colored area is much larger than on the close up picture.

Just having some fun...I would never make it on the CSI team!!!

[Hoffer]

PS

When I say "first pic"...I mean the first pic where you are holding the fish...compared to the 2nd and 3rd pics of the fish on the ruler.

Not trying to be a jerk or anything...it just kind of goes to the point that from pic to pic and fish to fish its just hard to tell much.

Thats why this dude should have put his fish on the ruler...no questions then. Oh well...its an awesome fish either way. BTW, does anyone know that when they say the fish was caught on the "rainy river" where are they generally fishing? is it like way down by the Baudette area or further up by Fort Frances or what?

[DTro]

It's rainy and this is fun

I understand it's all in good fun

Here's a close up of the adipose fin, on both pics.

[Hoffer]

Looks darn similar to me!!

I guess I need to post an "I am wrong" too!!

(but how do I know that the close up pic on the first fish is the same one in the other pic!! ha-ha!!! we could go back and forth all day!!)

[DTro]

Yep, I see your point. But take a look at that cable in the close up and compare it to the original, it would be tough to fake that.

Now that was a thread hijack of major proportions.

Back to walleyes...

[OnAFly]

Hold on just a second, judging by the first pic of the cat, I think you may have the world record largest helicopter seed!

[Hoffer]

Onafly - funny stuff!

But Dtro...why back to walleyes? I thought you were a cat guy?

I wish I knew how to post pics on here...I have a couple eyes i wouldnt mind posting...

[Scott K]

Click the 5th tab, then click browse, then find the picture, then add add file, then done adding files, then click submit.