World Record Released in WI

[DTro]

Here we go again....

An angler from Green Bay, Wisconsin, caught the fish of a lifetime—and didn’t even know it.

No stranger to catching big fish, John Grover was targeting walleyes on May 9, 2013 when he hooked something notably larger. He proceeded to fight the 64-inch fish for almost an hour on 17-pound test line, even after his reel blow out, the Green Bay Gazette reported. He landed the fish, measured it, took a few photos, and released it back into the bay.

“I didn’t really think anything of it when I caught it. I just knew it was big,” Grover said. “To be honest, I don’t fish for muskies, so I just imagined the record fish to be like 70 or 71 inches until I came in to (Smokey’s) bait shop and talked to him.”

Grover asked Jeff Tilkins, owner of Smokey’s on the Bay Bait Shop, about the size of the muskie mounted on the wall of the bait shop. After finding out that it was a 52-inch fish, Grover casually mentioned that he just caught one larger. Everyone thought he was joking until he pulled out his smartphone.

“When he showed us the picture, I could not believe it. There it was, and just look at the body. That fish has at least a 30-inch girth, there is no doubt in my mind about that,” Tilkins said.

It was then that Grover realized he may have hooked, landed, and released a possible world-record muskie. Tilkins posted Grover’s photo on the shop’s Facebook page, and so far, it’s received mixed reactions—some believe the fish is smaller than stated.

“This guy has absolutely no reason to lie about this fish. When he came in here, he was more interested in what kind of catfish bait to buy then he was showing me this picture,” Tilkins said. “People are trying to discredit him for no reason. He’s getting no extra benefit out of this. He just happened to catch a potential world-record muskie out of season, and it’s still swimming in the bay somewhere.”

The current world IGFA all tackle muskie world record is 67.5 pounds set by another Wisconsin angler in 1949. While the reported dimensions would put Grover's fish at an estimated 72 pounds, he cannot submit the catch for consideration because it was never weighed on a certified scale.

[DTro]

[Walleye Guy]

Huge fish and a great catch! 64 inches? My personal, uneducated guess, based only on the picture presented above is that it is nowhere near 64 inches long. Mid 50's possibly or probably. Still a beast.

[MuskieJunkie]

That fish has at least a 30-inch girth, there is no doubt in my mind about that,” Tilkins said.

(eye roll)

That is a great fish

[CaptainMusky]

Big fish, but 30 inch girth? Rrrrriiigggghhhhhttt.

There is a lot of dump stirring about this on the "musky boards" and the one whole thread had to get deleted.

There is a question in that interview you posted referring to "Gary Coleman". If you hadnt seen the thread I mentioned, you wouldnt get it.

IMO that was completely classless that the guy at Smokeys did that. He was responding to comments made in that thread pertaining to this guy's stature. Not cool.

He seemed like a genuine person though, but I think his measurement is off especially the girth.

[CaptainMusky]

The sad part of this whole deal is this guy is getting some flak about it when its it baitshop who is trying to capitalize on it. I mean, they sought him out to try and do an interview. Classless.

[DTro]

Yeah what was with the Gary Coleman question?  That was kind of uncalled for.  They could have just asked for his height for reference.

 

Keep in mind that the girth was never measured, someone just claimed that they believed it to be an easy 30 based on the photo alone, which I would disagree with in a big way.   Looks more like low to mid 20’s in girth.   64” is a super long fish but really tough to base on only a picture alone.  I do however think its pretty safe to say that this fish was no world record.  Look at the O’Brien fish for a good comparison. 

 

If you watch the video of him holding the tape measure, he has his arms outstretched a lot wider than he does in the photo.   But I guess we will never know, the guy doesn’t really have any reason to be dishonest and for sure don’t think he is trying to be, but I’ve also seen plenty of measuring mistakes happen….PLENTY   I’ve even seen seasoned veterans put a fish on a tape and then forget what it was 3 minutes later

[CaptainMusky]

The whole Gary Coleman thing came about because this guy, at first, was nameless. Guys like to pick apart claims of photos by looking at other objects, width of the hand, etc. Someone described him as "being Gary Coleman", meaning he was small in stature. Very ridiculous on a forum and completely classless that this guy paid homage to it in his "interview".

[MSRiverdog]

It's swimming, if you think it is or isn't that big don't matter. It's swimming, and it's a dang big fish.

[RumRiverRat]

30" girth.................um no.

[harvey lee]

I always get a kick out of people who see a photo and then try to decide how large it is. No way one can tell by a photo. I do not care how many fish one has caught, one cannot tell.

For all the years I mounted different species of fish, I do not know how many times I guessed what the length and weigh was of many different fish and was wrong. I am sure I could take a mounted fish, hold it up and ask 10 people how long it was and what the girth is. My bet, 10 different answers with maybe one close.

I really thought that people on this forum could get passed, your fish is not that big.

I remember one time a staff person on HSO right here, questioned how large a flathead catfish was I caught as he thought my hand did not fit to the fishs mouth correctly. He all but called me right out and called me a liar.

If this guys fish is not quite that big, who cares, it is still a very nice fish.

One of the reasons I no longer post fish photo's of my fish on HSO, someone will say, it's not that big like a 7 year old.

Does it really matter if a fisherman stretches the length or girth of his fish a few inches????? Not saying he did, just saying.

[CaptainMusky]

Harvey, I get what you are saying and agree with you pretty much to a "T". I think where the big issue comes in with this particular fish and the "claims" made by the angler are that fish of that size have not been documented to date. If someone caught a 53 and said it was a 53 it wouldnt really be as big of a deal. Im sure many would discredit the size like you said, but this fish is not a hohum fish. Its a super fish by any standard and I think that is where all the skepticism came from.

[thatoneguy]

Awesome fish, regardless of the actual measurements.

[DTro]

CM is right, the reason this particular fish has gained the interest of many is because of the claimed world record status.

IF IF IF

well that is something we will never know, so all we can do as fishermen is judge for ourselves. We are entitled to our opinion, like it or not.

People make measuring mistakes ALL the time. I don't think anyone is calling the guy a liar, but perhaps he measure 54 and not 64? That is just one simple scenario that could have happened.

I have no issues saying my opinion is that fish would not come close to some of the "Super" fish on record and that is MY opinion.

For example, the O'Brien fish which was 58 x 30.5

[PurpleFloyd]

Terrific fish. as it as big as he claims? probably not. But it is still magnificent and above all it is still swimming around living life and getting bigger rather than being killed just to prove the size.

[harvey lee]

Harvey, I get what you are saying and agree with you pretty much to a "T". I think where the big issue comes in with this particular fish and the "claims" made by the angler are that fish of that size have not been documented to date. If someone caught a 53 and said it was a 53 it wouldnt really be as big of a deal. Im sure many would discredit the size like you said, but this fish is not a hohum fish. Its a super fish by any standard and I think that is where all the skepticism came from.

I do agree to some extent.

I just do not understand why people question so many pic's of fish posted here on HSO.

It happens all the time, record or not. This will not be the last fish pic to be critisized about size, record or not.

Years ago, my Dad, son and I were out fishing and my son caught this monster rock bass. We looked at it and said, this has to be one of the largest we have ever seen.

I looked at the records maybe a year later and saw what the record rock bass size was. I am sure to this day the fish we caught beat the record woithout any doubt. Glad I did not take a pic and post of a picture of that as I am sure someone would have stated, no way. Happens here way to much.

I guess the point I am trying to make is, noone here can tell the size, length or girth of a fish from a photo, record or not.

people can assume and we know what others say about that.

DTRo, the fish in your pic above does not look that long at all so we cannot use that as an example.

Carry on assuming.

[DTro]

Not talking length...

Referring to world record talk

TO ME the OBrien fish looks substantially BIGGER and he is holding it like most all people would hold a 65lb fish (about the only way you can )

[Gordie]

Its a darn nice fish and a great story.

I have held a couple of fish in the 60 lb class and it is a chore do so. and Yes Dtro its about the only way you can

[harvey lee]

I will try and remember how to hold a larger fish as you suggest so noone questions it size. LIke I stated, when my fish was questioned in these forums, by a HSO staffer, my hand was not the correct size. Always someone who thinks a fish is of the incorrect size or length.

Too bad there is not a forum where a person could have his pic approved for size, length, weigth and girth, then before it was placed in a thread, it would not get picked apart.

AS far as how they are holding the fish, maybe the only way you can. Numerous ways to hold a fish also if you have the strength.

[CaptainMusky]

The only way to avoid picture criticism is to have that fish on a bump board in the pic.

Harvey its not just here that people question claims of size in pics, its everywhere.

Its funny you bring up the story about a rock bass because I had the exact same thing happen to me. Caught this giant rock bass while fishing with my buddies. Said it had to be a state record. They all thought I was nuts so I released it (would have regardless). Go home look up state records and it was like 1#2oz. Guarantee that fish was two and a half pounds. Showed it to my buddies and they were like dam you probably had a record. Not that I could handle all the fame and notereity of having the state record rock bass so it was fine in the end.

As for holding a "60#" fish, there is no way I could hold one with arms extended straight out for more than just a heave ho. Try holding a 40# bag of softener salt like that once.

[PurpleFloyd]

The biggest issue anyone should have is the way his arms are spread in the picture where they are sticking out no more than 8 inches from his shoulders but in the bait shop video he raises the hands above his shoulders and substantially wider than his shoulders to demonstrate how wide it was and how he was holding it to get the length of the fish. That is a big red flag but still, the fish is alive and swimming and the chances of any or us catching one bigger than that one is rare.

[harvey lee]

I guess I have no issues with a guy that maybe adds a few inches on. He knows it may not be that large. No record so no harm.

If others want to question the size, thats fine I guess. Heck, maybe he photoshopped it to his hands.

CM, the rock bass record has more than likely been broken many times as people just do not believe the state record is as small as it is.

[merkman]

I caught a 7 inch sunfish once.....

.

[CaptainMusky]

I caught a 7 inch sunfish once.....

.

If its not on a bumpboard with a pic, and two witnesses I am not buying it.

[mrklean]

The way i look at it the guy that caught the fish doesnt really care about any records or anything regarding the fish, the bait shop owner saw an opp to make some money why else would he make a video and post it out there