Valascus

He is trying to get the fish certified. There is an article on ESPN.com in their outdoor section under fishing that says he is going through with the application process.

If these guys were the avid WR chasers, as many who know them have said they are, I have a hard time believing that they would INTENTIONALLY try to foul hook the fish. If he knew when he was looking down in the water that he was looking at a potential WR fish, why put that in jeopardy by trying to snag it...especially with all of the witnesses around. It was also said that there was a much smaller male fish on the bed with her that was trying hit the jig. So he didn't miss her 4 times...he was trying to miss the male fish those times more than likely to get her to bite.

Because, even though it can't be proved that this fish is or isn't close to it's end, the fact of the matter is that this is a very very old fish. The possibility of the fish dying soon is undeniably there. Let's say that the IGFA doesn't certify this fish as the WR. Then in the next few days they find this fish belly up. There goes the WR. The one fish that has been caught in 70 YEARS that could break the dubious Perry WR is dead. If he would have kept the fish it would have made a strong case for a legitimate WR. That would have been a wonderful wonderful thing for the bass fishing sport. Like I said though, I don't fault the gentelman for letting the fish go...in his mind he was doing the right thing because he did not think the fish would have qualified for the WR due to being foul hooked.

Cuz it was the right thing to do. He is still going through with the application process even though the fish was foul hooked, because the IGFA's rules concerning foul hooking a potential WR are pretty vague. If he lies about it and the IGFA finds out he definately wouldn't get the WR. Aside from that there were a decent amount of witnesses that had seen that the fish was foul hooked. He would have had a much better chance had he kept the fish. Taking a fish that large out of that lake is not going to hurt a thing. On top of that, that fish is OLD! You never know...it could die of natural causes within the week. I realize he will probably try to capture the fish again minus the foul hooking part. BUT IN THE IGFA'S RULEBOOK IT SAYS THAT THE WORLD RECORD CAN BE DISQUALIFIED IF THE FISH WAS INTENTIONALLY FOUL HOOKED. In the ESPN article Weakly said he did not know that he still had a shot at the WR even though the beast was foul hooked. Lake Dixon is only a 70 acre impoundment. That fish is old enough to have spawned many many times. That lake is already saturated with that fishes genetics. Also to maintain a healthy fishery in a lake that "small" sometimes fish have to be harvested to ensure the good future health of the fishery. All the above are good reasons to have kept that fish, and to take every possible precaution to keep the fish ALIVE. But as it has been pointed out, his shot at the WR is in jeopardy because: 1)He has no measurements, aside from weight of the fish. 2) He did not keep the fish. 3) The fish was foul hooked, but as I pointed out above, that is going to be completely at the discretion of the IGFA officials at to whether or not they say it is still a WR despite being foul hooked. 4)His scale he used to weigh the fish must be certified by the IGFA. I wouldn't have faulted the gentleman for keeping the fish, I don't fault him for letting it go either. In my book he is doing his duty to the conservation of that lake either way. The only thing I would have definately faulted him on is if he would have lied about any portion of the events that occurred, which up to now it appears as if he has been completely honest.

Yeah...you and about every bass fisherman in world.

The military grade Hummer of fish! ;D I bet that thing has a HEMI. ;D

How old do you all think that fish is? For a fish to get that large it has to be pretty darn old...for a Lm Bass anyway. What do you all think the measurements of that beast are? What are everyone's best guesses?

Man...I just don't understand why in the heck you don't take the measurements of a beast like that...no length...no girth...just weight. That is an awesome pic. That fish just don't look natural to me though...freak of nature. But I bet it would put up a fight for the ages.

Good Lord!!! That thing is a BEHEMOTH!!! I could definately see how that beast is a world record fish. I still don't think that the IGFA is going to certify it as the new world record. What a shame... But on the upside...it is proof that there are fish out there that can dethrone the current WR. Gives us all something to dream about and shoot for. Great news for the sport.

Here are the rules from IGFA. The first link is a link directly to their rulebook and the second link takes you directly to the IGFA's homepage. http://www.igfa.org/BookRule2004.pdf'>http://www.igfa.org/BookRule2004.pdf http://www.igfa.org/ Just reading the rulebook myself, I don't think that this will stick as a world record. I don't think they will have enough info. As far as the foul hooking goes...in the book it says that a world record fish will be disqualified if it is INTENTIONALLY foul hooked. I don't think this fish was intentionally foul hooked...he was probably just doing his fishing thing and snagged the beast on accident. But then again with so little informatin that these guys seem to have submitted I don't think there is anyway for them to prove the fish wasn't intentionally foul hooked.

I'll believe it when I see it. Like Matt said...if those two guys have been WR Chasers for so long they would have known what they needed to do to get the fish certified as the new WR. Doesn't add up for me.

Thaks a lot Triton_Mike. That article was very informative. Heh...as cold as it has suddenly gotten around here I may have to give it shot. Might be my only chance to catch anything this week.

I have never tried drop shotting, mostly because I always assumed it was a technique that is used from a boat or dock with a completely vertical presentation. Is this completely true, or is there any way to drop shot while bank fishing? I have also generally been under the impression that drop shotting is a deep water technique, but how deep is deep? Can it be used as a shallow water presentation as well? :-?

I think in that situation I would retrieve my 8 meter, double bladed spook as fast as I could...those blades would just be ah' gittin' it.

Heh...let's see...For largemouths I am gonna predict about 5 lbs. Anything over that would just be icing on the cake for me seeing as I can't recall ever catching anything close to 5 lbs. SMB...I would just like to catch one. Can't recall ever catching one of those. So whatever I catch will be my PB. ;D I guess it would be safe to say that I don't have a PB for either species...so it looks to be an up year for me. ;D

Heh...I wish the weather in St. L, MO would make up its mind... >...one week it's high 50's, 60's, and we have even had a few 75 degree days...now the extended forcast fro pretty much the rest of the month of March is highs in the mid 40's with the possiblility of snow a few more times before the month is up. Sometimes I hate St. L weather. *Sigh*....I hate winter. I agree that anytime is always a good time to go fishing, but man...I REALLY hate cold weather. Unless I really really have been feeling the fishing itch really bad I'll brave it. I have been fishing maybe 7 times since November. Caught nothing but dinks...but hey still fun.

One of the places I am speaking of is a private farm pond. I believe it was dug out and used for cattle at one point. That hasn't been the case for decades now. It was stocked with bluegill, catfish, and bass well before I was capable of fishing (about age 4 or 5...I'm 23 now.). I don't believe the pond was stocked with any type of forage such as crayfish, minnows, shad or anything like that. So that is one of the places that I am fairly sure there aren't any of the above. Lots of frogs. LOTS of frogs...some really small to some massive bullfrogs. But just to make sure there aren't any crayfish in there I'll try setting up some traps to make sure.

That is what I used to do. But now I am trying to find ways to help me zone in on an effective pattern faster. If I can rule out certain types or styles of bait that would make it a lot faster. I know that bass are instinctual animals. They eat, survive, and spawn. Does a bass simply instintually feed upon anything...even if it is something that is completely foreign to it's native waters...something it may not have ever seen before in it's existance? Does the bass learn what forage is in his area and just stick to that, avoiding that which it is unfamiliar with? Or does it simply eat anything it sees that seems like it may be easily edible be it unfamiliar or not? Just some thoughts I had.

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this...here or in the fishing tackle section...so if it needs moving by all means . As we all know there is an absolute ton of finishes and types of lures that are crafted to imitate certain types of forage for bass. Some imitate craws, some baitfish, tons of worm types and so on and so forth. Here's the question. Say you are fishing a body of water that doesn't have craws in it, for example. Should you even try to tie on a lure that is imitating a craw? Since the bass are not accustomed to seeing this type of forage will they be more wary of this foreign object in their waters...or will they still instintually look upon it as a source of food? Same thing if you were fishing a body of water without minnows or shad. Is it just a waste of time to try a lure that there is no forage for said lure to imitate? Should you just do your best to match the forage of the body of water you are fishing? :-?

Heh...I don't really care what the conditions are. If I think I even remotely have a shot of catching a fish or two (which I usually feel that way) I'll try everything I got. But in those conditions...big ole' rattling jig probably dark blue with a matching super chunk trailer and the head of the jog slathered up in some Megastrike fished SLOOOOOOOOOOW. That's what I would try anyway. If not that then what Rattlinrogue said...spinnerbait with single colorado.

I believe that is what Senko77 uses. He speaks highly of it. Like Will said though...for the most bang for your buck that I have seen, Megastrike is good stuff.

If I am using a scent I use Megastrike. Stays on the lure pretty darn well.

That's true. There are a lot of folks on the forums that don't always have access to a boat. If you are me...um...let's see...next to never. I couldn't tell you how to find any types of underwater structure or cover to save my life. I couldn't tell you how to find a flats to fish or anything of that nature. Most of my fishing is done looking for steeper drops that are real close to cover on the banks, a partially submerged bush, a fallen tree, etc., and I fish the heck out of it until I catch something, change lures, or just get frustrated and try to find another suitable spot (which takes a loooooooooooong time. I may not be the most patient guy in the world, but I got a lot of patience when it come to fishing ).

CONGRATS TO KENDAMMIT!!!! Nice job. I was sooooooooo wrong... ;D. But it was still fun to try.

Good luck on your trip and welcome to the boards! Lots of good info here and lots of good people willing to share their knowledge and insight with ya.