superbee Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 So where is the 37"er? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddsbyday Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The pic is in outdoor news. The fish is long and slender. The length has to be a misprint or a fudge(estimate). A 27 in. 12 lb fish would be a football. This one looks like a big post spawn female. Nice fish but not 37 inches. (Unless no ruler on board). I remember the first huge 10 lb walleye I caught. Turned out to be 4.75 lbs on a certified scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polarsusd81 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I remember the first huge 10 lb walleye I caught. Turned out to be 4.75 lbs on a certified scale. Scott, I haven't got a "10" walleye yet so I haven't had that disappointment yet. I had a good one last fall on Mille Lacs, but that story has been told a few times already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borch Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Fish can really throw a person off just by looking at them. I caught a very fat 29" late last fall that I was sure was a 30"+ when I was getting ready to net it. Bugger still went 10 1/2 lbs on my digtal scale. It had unreal girth and was an absolute beast! Maybe it'll go 30" this fall when I catch her again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northlander Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 37"er? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Theee only 37 inch walleye I've ever seen was caught by MY WIFE, Morrrgaaan Fairchild. Yaaa that's the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green 'eyes! Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Is Morgan Fairchild still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123fish Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Yes I believe she is. She just had everything lifted for the third time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTro Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Here's that 29" 11.2 I mentioned earlier. Could a walleye be any more plump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodmaker Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I agree 37 - no. 27-28 probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambjm Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 This is the picture of my 27" inch walleye, it weighed 7 lb exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyepatrol Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I've seen a pic of the fish and to be honest, I'd say it's about the same size as lambjm's but maybe not quite as thick. Either typos or just another Mille Lacs fish story......one of many we've all heard over the years come from that lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimBuck2 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Use her pinky finger as a measurement scale. It's clearly visible. Use the tip of a screwdriver and mark the length of it, then go from nose to tail of the fish. My pinky is approximately 3". Count how many times you moved the driver and multiply by 3. I came up with 36".TB2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muc33 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Here is a June caught 39" Northern from Canada And here is a 30" March caught walleye from LOTW Best guages I can give. I have not seen the picture, but on both we show fingers so one can kind of guage by that, and we are both 6' tall guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenwalleye Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 They had a story similar to this south of hear on Diamond lake that turned out to be a hoax. Even a 27" inch fish isn't going to be close to 12lbs, unless it's full of eggs. So the whole story sounds made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutz77 Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Nice fish, but appears to be about 31.5-32.0" long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riverrat56 Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 I measured acrossed my 4 fingers, in a similar fasion to the 4 of hers in the picture, I got 3 inches acrossed my fingers, doing some simple comparisons, I got 10-10.5 of her handwidths over the length of the fish, so I'd give it 33" max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott K Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 I caught a fat 33" walleye this spring, and she weighed about 13 lbs! So their numbers are off some how! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish-I-Were-Fishn Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 [Please read forum policy before posting again. Admin] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddsbyday Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 If you have about 20 years to spend and are used to going home empty handed I can hook you up. Two over 10, one 12 and waiting for the teener! It was nice to meet you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croixflats Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 I caught a fat 33" walleye this spring, and she weighed about 13 lbs! So their numbers are off some how!State record 35.8 inches at 17.8 Pounds. 2 inches and girth makes a big differance. Point being, As Ive seen the walleye hit a length then get fatter in girth after hitting a set mark in length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisherman-andy Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 I think this is the picture article of the fish. Skinny but still a nice eye. Is it just me or does that tail fin seem exceptionally long on that fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riverrat56 Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 This fish is also in the classic long arm pose.....and she isn't quite as broad in the shoulders as alot of us here would be for a similar picture, all increasing the look of the fish.There was an article in this weeks ODN about this fish, they said it was not a misspring on their part, that was the info that came with the fish picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts