Thread on record walleye??

[Sonicrunch]

What is on the same plane is the dude's four fingers. Let's use those four fingers one unit of measurement. Looking at the pic, I roughly estimate nine units.

So:

How long do you guys think this one unit is? I have big hands, and I jjust measured my four fingers at 3.25. This guys has really big hands. Lets giver him 3.5 inches.

So, to get a rough estimate of the length of the fish, multiply how wide you think his fingers are by nine.

That makes 31.5 inches.

[Sonicrunch]

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

Thanks.

It takes a strong man to admit they are wrong. Kudos to C63.

[Hoffer]

I tried but it just goes to a small page with the same thing on top and no area to hit "browse" ??

I clicked on the 5th tab...tried it twice

[Nick Kuhn]

Here is a zander that is very close to the dimensions he gave:

_____________

Resized to be approximate, although based on the hand size the walleye is still closer to the camera and still appears to be well short of the zanders 35.25" length.

[lungdeflator]

Sorry didnt mean to start a ruckus on here...

I didnt believe the photo either. I dont want to be a "hater" but theres no way I can believe that.

As far as a big fish story to get name recognition....pretty stupid way to do it. A record walleye in MN is a very big deal to alot of people, he should've known it would have been checked over and scrutinized. All he will get now is recognition for being one of those guys that posts fake fish stories.

Also if it was a record, there would be a heck of alot more photos than just one. Lets see 'em

[Sota2Florida]

I don't want to be a critic but... This is a skinny eye that measured just under 29". That would make it 6" shorter than the fish this thread is talking about.

[vexi]

This is a lagit 30.25 caught on the Rainy River this spring. To me it looks smaller in the pic that it was in my hands. But there is no way that this other fish is 35"

[traveler]

Vexi; that looks like a 30" er to me...the other one I'm not buying.

[Scott M]

Kudos to dtro for saying what most of us are thinking, and backing it up with good solid examples. Just as an FYI, dtro has some insight into the importance of good solid documentation and scrutiny. He runs a catfish contest that relies on documentation and he has caught or been an in-the-boat witness to a mooneye and a (golden was it?) redhorse that were very close, but ultimately not exceeding the state record. In the cases of the record fish, his party was prepared to take pictures of the measurements to document the fish, although unlike the walleye situation, the fish could have been harvested (walleyes on the Rainy have to be released beyond April 14). As a guide, to not take pictures of the fish on board seems kind of hooky. Photographic ratio dimensions have been used to examine old photos and some have been thrown out as a result. The same test applied to this fish would be interesting; as someone else said, what are the chances this guy also has state record large hands I can't think of a fish that would be more scrutinized in this state than a new state record walleye; I guess you can throw me in with the rest of the jealous haters. A trophy fish? Yes. A new state record? No chance.

[ozzie]

The funny part of this story is the guy is a "guide" fishing on the Rainy in the spring and calls the DNR to ask what to do with a big fish!!! He most certainly knows the limits and rules of the spring river fishing and should have known that the fish goes back no matter how big of a fish it is!!! What do I do with a state record....put it back as it is out of season!!!!!!! duh sucks but that is the way the game goes just like sturgeon fishing...How many times has the sturgeon record been broken but out of harvesting season so it had to be releases? Oh and I am confident in saying this guy is spewing a bunch of talk on his claim!!! 35" and 17+lbs!?! no way not the walleye pictured

[PierBridge]

Not to mention he was using 4 pound test on the Rainey in the spring...yeah right.

Speaking of apology's this guy owes us all a very LARGE one!

[ozzie]

well he was "actually" using 5lb test but it qualified for the 4lb test class........either way light line for the Rainy or any river in fact

[magnum mike]

Easy fellas. I don't believe the "fish story" either but I fished the Rainy and LOW many times and used 6 pound test every time. That is what I always use for walleyes and have taken many 25"+ walleyes to the boat with nothing more. Don't Horse 'em!

I do call B as in B, S as in S on the "fish story".

[mnviking28]

Absolutely no way that is a 35" fish. As stated in other posts, that fish is a "long arm photo". I am going to say 28", 29", maybe 30"- tops. I don't believe a "guide" would not have a ruler in the boat or know what to do with it when he caught it. Lump me into the "hater" crowd as well. Trophy-yes, over 17 lbs-not a chance.

[mrklean]

Someones guide business must be slow for opener

[ozzie]

6lb yes under 6lb though??? I don't know many people that would go up to Rainy and fish for trophies with anything under 6lb... 5lb test isn't far from 6lb but then again it is a world of difference when you think about the conditions on the river and fishing for fish in the 10lb+ range

[IcePro]

So how long is 35.1 inches?

How many people actual have a tape that measures in .1 increments?

Maybe the next record will be 35.11 inches.

[IcePro]

I did some home work 0.1

5/64 = .0781

3/32 = .0938

7/64 = .1094

1/8 = .1250

Did he round up or down

Sure hope he was wearing his glasses to split the hairs on that tape

[Nick Kuhn]

So how long is 35.1 inches?

How many people actual have a tape that measures in .1 increments?

Maybe the next record will be 35.11 inches.

I have one at work the measures 50ths of inches. It's only 6 inches long though, and I have yet to find a practical use for it.

[c0untryf1sh3r]

Its a machinists rule. If you were Tool & Die guy you would use that thing everyday. Never seen one in 50th's thought.

[IcePro]

Its a machinists rule. If you were Tool & Die guy you would use that thing everyday. Never seen one in 50th's thought.

So who has a 35+ inch machinist rule and brings it in the boat?

[pushbutton]

Have you seen the new video this guy has put out?

[bobbymalone]

here's a tip. if you catch a monster fish, take two pics. the one of you holding it up and another one with the tape measure. otherwise it's just a tall tale. whatever, i'm sure whatever somebody caught was a nice fish. congrats.

[Chris Haley]

How can you use 5lb line and qualify for a 4lb record???? That doesn't make sense.

[CANOPY SAM]

I am also in the camp that says this fish doesn't come close to the 35 inch mark. Not a "hater", just genuinely concerned about the validity of the story. It does look probable that it makes the girth measurement though.

In contrast to what the newspaper stories, and others here in posts say, I actually love to see other fisherman successful, especially with really big fish. But to make up a story just for the sake of making the record books is just cheating.

This guy obviously had a good tape measure in his boat. What really makes me curious is how someone could even qualify for a line class record without any "official" weight, measurement, or witness of the catch???

I mean if I can simply take one picture and tell everyone I caught a 51 lb. channel catfish in my back yard on 6 lb. test, submit "a line sample", again without any witness or proof this was actually the line I was using, and be automatically put in the record books, then why wouldn't everyone and his brother be doing this? To steal another phrase, "the math doesn't work".

I think that's why this story has gone cold so fast. No indisputable evidence. Beautiful fish, but record book fish? Probably not.