View Full Version : New WA BASS record put on hold
HOOKUP
09-29-2006, 09:06 PM
Like some of the comments from this board the WDFW has concluded that the measurements and weight of this fish do not add up. There is an on going investigation to clear this situation up. The WDFW is supposed to make a statement about the fish before Oct. 8th
Knot in leader
09-30-2006, 01:01 AM
:applause:
Dave Smith
09-30-2006, 09:17 AM
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: NOT THAT IT WASN'T A GREAT FISH!!!!
Super Fluke
09-30-2006, 08:24 PM
Finaly
tnj8222
10-01-2006, 03:51 PM
really because of measurements? that shouldnt be the reason, the reason they shouldnt count it is because it was frozen!
Dave Smith
10-01-2006, 07:28 PM
who cares if it HAD BEEN frozen? I don't believe that he caught it somewhere other than Wa, does ANYONE? I do, however have a problem with the fact that it is impossible for that fish to weigh that much. Check this out: Superflukes fish: 24X18, 8 pounds. WA fish: 22X17, 9 pounds. HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
1bigfish
10-02-2006, 06:39 AM
Should it be disqualified because it was frozen?
Should it be disqualified because the measurements don’t add up?
Should it be disqualified because he caught it on Saturday and did not weigh it till Wednesday?
Take your pick as to why it should be disqualified but any way you look at it there is way to many suspicious circumstances around this fish to let it stand IMHO.
raptorschild
10-02-2006, 08:30 AM
I think the fish being frozen is the only provable thing right now.
It says right on the Application that any fish that is frozen will not be accepted. Case closed. Who cares what the thing does or does not weigh. having a frozen fish for that long gives someone plenty of time to tamper.
MacFish
10-02-2006, 03:14 PM
they say the first scale, that wasn't certified weighed it at 7 pounds, which sounds like the more accurate figure. I think I might be a little concerned if I bought my meat at Fred Meyer though.
I wish I could catch a 7lb smallie! :shrug:
Super Fluke
10-02-2006, 08:36 PM
I hope that it is rejected because the guy broke the rules so it shouldn't be acepted. It's like that 25lbs bass that guy caught he broke a rule so it can't be the world record. That is a big fish, I just don't think it is 9lbs.
Dave Smith
10-02-2006, 10:00 PM
If that fish was nine pounds and was not being counted because the guy froze it, that would be a sad tragedy. That would mean that he legitamately and legally caught the state record, but didn't get it counted on a technicality. Luckily, that is not the case. Instead, he caught a great fish, but it's not the state record and something is clearly wrong. Double checking things and making sure is the right thing- the fair thing to do IMO. Dave
raptorschild
10-03-2006, 09:03 AM
I agree mostly with your post dave, but those "technicalities" are there for many reasons. If you are going for a record....ya gotta know the rules. i guess it really doesnt matter. State record smally??? who really gives a crap. How do we know a bigger one hasnt been caught and simply not recorded. I know that i have caught 2 state records in other species, that i did not attempt to record. peamouth chub, and river sucker lol.
My only point in this, is that there are rules, and if you really really want your name in lights, gotta know em.
For me, i'd probably get just as much satisfaction watching the thing swim away, as seeing my name on the books.