Killing record fish

[FisH_SLaYer24]

If I were to ever catch a state record fish, I think I would honestly CPR the species. I would take measurements and pictures and then go ahead and get a replica made. The story behind how the fish was caught and the memories that it comes with, is much more important than my name in a record book that no one will remember after my "15 minutes of fame." Plus, then it gives that fish more time to grow and a chance for someone else to caugh it and share in a similar experience.

[harvey lee]

Yes, one can sell a mounted fish legally.

As far as the killing the fish to weigh the fish, how else would you do it and have a honest weight.

There is alot of money to be made by catching a record fish. So, there are also alot of dishinest fisherman out there and many would have record fish.

I do not believe that recording record fish the way MN does will ever hurt the fish population.

I realize we have alot of rules but in the end, we have great fishing also. I for one, fish alot for numerous specie and every single year I catch more and the size keeps improving. Catch & release and slots is working.

For an example, if people could measure thier own fish, I would guess that every fish specie record would be broken in the first year of doing that.

Heck, they have to give lie detector test as fish contests as people cannot be trusted for one afternoon.

We have alot of laws due to the fact that people break every law or rule out there so we get more.

Maybe we need to try to be a bit more honest.

We can kill a few fish to weigh for a possible record without doing a damage to our lakes or rivers.

[Spike76]

Honestly, I would probably filet it out and eat it, if I was spearing. I would try to release it if I was casting for it. Fish are for eating to me. When you have good cleaning facilities, keeping the fish are my goal. If I have to travel, then I like to release them. I don't see myself ever with a mounted fish or replica.

[Vitreus]

Honestly, I would probably filet it out and eat it, if I was spearing. I would try to release it if I was casting for it. Fish are for eating to me. When you have good cleaning facilities, keeping the fish are my goal. If I have to travel, then I like to release them. I don't see myself ever with a mounted fish or replica.

You would eat a record breaking fish?? Icecold!

[Spike76]

Vitreus, it would probably be fried, but maybe boiled. This would be a northern that I speared, and I think they are the best tasting fish. I would probably measure the length and not even know if it was the state record. It would taste good though. At my age, size doesn't matter, unless your on a slot lake, and have one over the slot already.

[nsnutter]

If I caught a state record fish, I'd throw it on the scales, get it certified, then get it mounted.

[northspear]

Minnesota has a lot of laws. But they also do some good. Stocking lakes with Musky and Walleye. Putting more lakes with slots for pike. Having a five limit on panfish. I see a lot of good in these steps to make MN lakes better and better. These steps could help more people catch record fish.

For example with the pike slot on more lakes would produce more bigger fish so if you had to kill a fish it wouldnt hurt the lake as much.

But all in all the person that catches that next record fish its all on them if they want to mount it. Shouldnt matter what all of us say weather it be a Musky or a Catfish. Everyone has that fish that they fish for.

[Scott M]

What do you mean "if" nutter? Congratulations on getting in the record books.

I can honestly say that if I caught a state record I would harvest it. I say that because unlike at least three quarters of the angling populace, I know how to correctly measure total length and have a good scale. (I'd guess most people on here can also do so but this audience is some of the better informed and just plainly stated better anglers out there)I also can correctly identify all record-holding fish in this state. In most instances, a state record fish has outlived its usefulness as a member of a population and releasing it to grow larger won't have much of an impact (save for fish with demonstrated repeat catch and release ability - like some pike, bass, or musky).

You guys that complain about the laws and would like to see the DNR get out on the water to certify state record fish for release, all I can say is I wish you could see what gets brought in as potential state record fish to each and every DNR Fisheries office. In the last year, I saw a white bass, a golden redhorse, a dogfish, a sauger, and a pumpkinseed. All of them fell far short of state records. I get fishing buddies that call asking about if the fish they caught is a state record or close. If the DNR were to go out and check on everybody's fish on the ice or at the boat launch, it'd be a huge waste of time and fleet, and it would probably empower more people that think they are close. At a time when more is being asked and less is available (new funds with license fee increases for 2013 and beyond only started accruing 2 weeks ago), putting something with high costs and little reward on the menu wouldn't be a smart move.

[silverbulletguy]

Any thoughts on putting a few extra pages in the yearly reg's book with pics and measurements of the current state record's for anglers to use as a reference? Many people that buy licenses wouldn't be able to identify many of the species let alone know if they are possible records or not.

[aanderud]

Scott, you make some good points about the cost if the DNR was to go out and verify every crappie that was a pound shy of the record, every flathead that was 20 pounds shy, etc....

I don't think too many fish are actually killed in the process of potential record verification. It's probably less actually than the hook mortality percentage, statewide, of CPR-ed fish. So, while I'm a big CPR guy, and in the past I've applauded the fisheries in South Dakota, Nebraska, and other states where they verify and release the fish -- I'm going to reverse my stance and say that the additional cost is probably not worth it for the minimal number of fish saved. Only a small fraction of people catch record-worthy fish anyway, and only a small fraction of those actually WANT to release it.

There are exceptions to the rule -- state record sturgeon, for instance, are probably still good breeders... as might be state record muskies... but most are well past their prime as far as breeding goes anyway. There's always the re-catch potential and low population densities to consider, which is the biggest reason why I'll never harvest a state record flathead. I've caught the same flathead multiple times in a summer, and if I harvest it, that won't be possible. But, if someone harvests one every now and then, it's not going to be the biggest difference maker on the fishery's quality.

[DTro]

Yes I also agree with that, but in the few cases that an educated angler (that is proficient in measuring and weighing) would want to try and save a record fish to release, in certain circumstances, I think it could be done.

But yes I agree, the hit to the fishery is close to nil.