Vermonster

I agree, the conspiracy theory is getting old. The guy snagged (Intentional or not) a HUGE fish, threw it back, and the legend grows....

After further genetic testing, it's found the FISH are the ones on Steroids...... ;D

The transplanting idea won't hold water. Elk, Deer, Turkey's, Pheasants, fish, etc., have all been transplanted at one time or another throughout the country. Do we not let in any of those animals to their respective record books? The food idea is interesting, but I still think you could call it sorta normal. As for the "normal bass" with "normal food", you know what I find interesting. The research I've seen shows that lifespan and size are shorter/smaller in captive bass. I find it suprising, since you could feed them what you want, no predators, etc. Kinda cool......

Rumors...It's also thought that Mike was trying to get peoples minds off the lake. It probably worked too. So what now?? They used a marker to place the birthmark on the fish since that fish was found dead and did not exsist anymore?? Give me a break! Dude, you're getting a little hostile here. I was actually on your side in most of this, but you're getting a little too wired. Now, as much as you can say that's the same fish, you can't prove it. You think there is only one bass out there with a black mark on it's gills????? Hardly. I really don't care if it is or isn't. It would be neat if it was, to use it to track a fishes development over the years, but it's not stone-cold proof....... Besides, what's all the fuss over about this being the same fish or not. It's a HOG either way, whether or not it was caught before.......

Actually Roger, there is some talk by Mike Long that he found a floater that he believes is his original fish with the black dot......

Not through the gills Matt, but the gill plate. No damage will be done.....

you summarize your feelings well in that single statement, Guilty till proven innocent. Unfortunately, this is how society has become. There will NEVER be 100% agreement on a WR. People always doubt till it's proven. The guy could video tape it, photo it, measure it, weigh it on a certified scale, in front of 50 witnesses and an IGFA official, and there will still be doubters. They will say "The video is doctored", or he didn't catch it legally, or "Everyone's in on the conspiracy", or "It shouldn't count because California feeds trout to it's bass, so it's unnatural"......... It's really pretty sad. I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, but when the facts started coming out, I have taken the side that there is no way this should/could be a record. But at least I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Too many people here were attacking him, even before any details broke..... Also, I find something else very interesting. All of you doubters who have said "These guys were record chasers, so they knew what they needed to do to certify it", well, here's something. Do you think that world record bass chasers would have a scale that's off by 3 pounds or more???? Absolutely not. Therefore, I am going to take the opinion that this fish was a legit 24-25 pounder, just not legally caught and not going to be a record. Too many of you seem to doubt that it was even that big..... :

Matt, I'd like to see the video again, because as far as I can tell, they didn't put a hole through it's mouth. They just slipped the rope under the gill plate and through the mouth. You're making it seem like they damaged her. Are you just assuming this????

This is not the George Perry era where camera's were rare. He did officially weigh his on certified scales, and met the requirements of the time. Those requirements have changed since then. We have to follow the new rules now. Sorry....It's still a big 20lb plus bass though. But was his scale appropriately calibrated and certified by the IGFA BEFORE he weighed his fish on it????? Look, I think it's obvious (Should be to most) it's a 25 pound fish or there abouts. What's not clear is the way it was caught, etc. So, it shouldn't be considered for a record.

[quote author=RoLo link=1142978655/40#51 date=1143042637 It really doesn't matter what you or I "think". To validate a state record and certainly a world record, the scales must have been calibrated in the recent past. I live on a lake that has the potential to break the Florida state record. Right now, before ever setting the hook, I know the whereabouts of 5 "certified" scales, nearest to my home lake. I see know reason to make excuses for these guys? It works both ways. How many of us can say, merely by looking at a photograph that this bass is definitely over 22-lbs 4oz? This is beginning to get silly. Roger

The sad thing about this is that, what I highlighted in bold, will never happen. Yes, it turned out to maybe be true in this case, but we've become a society of "Guilt before Innocence". Everyone will question a WR every time it comes up. Too many people believe in conspiracy theories, frauds, etc. It's sad what we've turned into...... :-[

Just letting you all know, you can rest easy in Georgia...... Till I get out this weekend...... ;D By Ed Zieralski UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER March 22, 2006 For almost 74 years, George W. Perry's name has been associated with the most famous largemouth bass ever caught, and for a while this week it looked as if John MacArthur Weakley's name might take the old Georgian's place. But not now. George W. Perry, you can stop rolling over in your grave. Late last night, the man better known as Mac Weakley decided he'd had enough of the controversy behind his potential world-record catch, that 25-pound, 1-ounce Queen Kong of a bass he foul-hooked at Dixon Lake on Monday. He decided not to submit the catch to the International Game Fish Association for approval as the all-tackle, world-record largemouth bass. To tell you the truth, the three of us have been talking to friends and family the last day and Mike (Winn) has been checking the Internet, and we're seeing that it's 50-50 in terms of support for the catch standing as a world record, Weakley said. It seems 50 percent feel it should stand as a record and 50 percent say it shouldn't. That's why Jed (Dickerson), Mike and I have decided not to submit it as a world record to the IGFA. We don't want to go out breaking the record with so many people doubting it. We want it to be 100 percent or more realistically 90 percent being behind it with no controversy. We plan to be back with a world record bass everyone will get behind. So ended this crew's current long and grueling quest for the world-record bass, for now. Weakley, Dickerson and Winn watched yesterday as Weakley's controversial catch went national and international. News services and sports shows and even the Drudge Report, for goodness sake, ran with the story like a bass that just gobbled a stocked rainbow trout. It's been more mayhem than any of us expected, believe me, said Mike Winn, who manned the motor of the boat while Weakley and Dickerson alternated casts at the huge, egg-laden female bass. But it was Winn who posed for all pictures taken of the bass before it was released back into Dixon Lake. Weakley caught the female from a nest she was patrolling in 12 to 15 feet of water, no more than 15 yards from shore and 15 yards from Dixon's fishing dock. The fact Weakley foul-hooked the bass from a nest in clear water kicked in the more than century-old debate over whether it's ethical to fish for spawning females by irritating them into a frenzy so they smack or inhale a lure. I have mixed emotions about fishing for spawning bass and I respect other's opinions who feel they shouldn't be fished, Weakley said. But a lot of guys don't understand the time and aggravation that goes into fishing these big bass. The stars really have to be aligned. Conditions have to be perfect. Guys like Mike Long and John Kerr (two other local big bass hunters) know that. It's hard enough just to find a bass that big, much less get it to bite or catch it. Only the people who have caught and fought these big bass know that. Besides the ethical question of fishing spawning female bass, the bigger issue for Weakley's bass and Dixon Lake was whether the catch would have been approved as the all-tackle world record by the IGFA. Now that's not an issue. Earlier yesterday, Jason Schratwieser, conservation director for the IGFA, commended Weakley and crew for releasing the bass, which, had it been approved, would have shattered Perry's nearly 74-year-old record of 22 pounds, 4 ounces, the weight of the lunker the Georgian caught June 2, 1932, at Montgomery Lake in Georgia. Schratwieser said yesterday that Weakley's catch, like all potential record catches, would have been considered for the all-tackle world record had he submitted it. Weakley was putting the components of the application together, but the gaping holes included the fact that Weakley unintentionally foul-hooked the fish, didn't take measurements of its length and girth and didn't weigh it on a certified scale. We don't have any information on the fish right now, so we don't have any comment, Schratwieser said yesterday, not knowing Weakley was going to change his mind about submitting the catch for approval. But if it's submitted, it's something we'll discuss and look at. Absolutely. One thing we never want to do is penalize a recreational angler for releasing a fish. I commend the guy for releasing such a big, spawning female because she'll contribute a lot to that lake. A big female like that will produce more eggs, but more importantly, more quality eggs. There may be a genetic component that she passes on to subsequent generations of larger, healthier fish. Schratwieser added that the fact Weakley didn't take measurements of the fish length and girth, an integral part of the IGFA's application process wouldn't have mattered if the photos and video of the weigh-in he took substantiated the bass' monstrous size. We like to have the measurements for several reasons, Schratwieser said. One is for scientific purposes, so we can get a better understanding of the size of the species. Measurements also help confirm the dimensions of the fish if the pictures are lacking in the application. One of the key issues would have been the foul-hooking of the bass. By IGFA rules of angling, so long as Weakley didn't intentionally foul-hook the bass, his catch would have been viable. But because the catch wasn't legal by California Department of Fish and Game regulations, it violated one of the IGFA's main principles, which is that anglers must comply with equipment or angling regulations. State fish and game regulations in California clearly say that a fish, to be legally caught, must be hooked in the mouth while it tries to take a bait, lure or fly. Weakley didn't violate the law when he accidentally foul-hooked the bass, but he and his crew did violate the law by not immediately releasing it. The fish has to voluntarily take the bait or lure in its mouth, and if it didn't, it's not a legal fish, said Erick Elliott, Julian-based game warden for the Department of Fish and Game. By the letter of the law, it's a violation because it's been illegally taken and not supposed to be in possession. But in the spirit of the law, a fish that big, it's human nature to want to document that catch. I don't know if I would have written a ticket for that even if I was watching it. Jim Dayberry, who is supervisor of rangers at Dixon Lake, said yesterday that he and his staff respected the way in which Weakley, Winn and Dickerson handled the bass after it was caught and dealt with the massive publicity the catch produced. They saw how much Jed's 21-pounder (the 21-pound, 11-ounce fish caught in 2003 and also believed to be the same bass) was stressed by being out of the water so long, Dayberry said. They knew keeping it out of the water would have been the kiss of death for that big bass. They wanted to do minimal damage. And there was a lot to be said about their honesty. These are stand-up guys we've known since they were kids. They have a lot of heart.

I was always partial to live crawfish or live grass frogs.... Like candy to them..... So, I guess immitation lures of those may be good......

First of all, I think this guy DID NOT intentionally try to snag the fish, but I could believe he could have been trying to pass it off as legally caught. I DO NOT think it should be certified. However, a few responses.... Matt, Can you cut and paste the CA DFG section that says the foul hooked fish must be IMMEDIATELY released. I read the fishing regs yesterday, and only found where it defined a proper catch (In the mouth), but saw nothing about releasing it...... Second, gimme a break about this "Must be certified BEFORE". I agree that you have to get a scale calibrated before to qualify as official, but do you honestly think this digital scale was off by 3 pounds???? I would find it very hard to believe. Some of you guys are using the certified scale debate to go beyond the world record status to even say that the fish wasn't that big. I think the guy caught a legit 25 pounder, but probably will miss out on the record and financial windfall because of his mistakes and some bad luck..... And how many of you guys have caught a 20 pound bass, and are able to say with certainty the from a photo on the internet you can say "20-21, maybe, but not 25". I sure as heck know I can't. All I know is that it's a huge fish.

;D Sorry, just thought this was funny...... No one will catch her, but she's been caught 20 times.... Just kinda funny. Good Luck Frank!!!!

Not too much more to add to this....... We are way more knowledgeable than 50 years ago in terms of conservation. If keeping and eating some fish would hurt the species, then we should be confident that our state Fish and Game Dept's would institute restrictions. As I said in another thread, you don't see many Deer being "Caught and Released", but whitetail levels are at an alltime high and keep going up and up, encroaching into our cities even........

I live 4 miles or so from the lake. I'll rent out my extra rooms at a reasonable rate...... ;D ;D ;D

But what is considered "retention" Matt???? If you go by the law, the technically did release the fish, just after weighing it.

So that means they will look over all the evidence, correct???? I've never applied for a record, so I am not sure on the lingo....

This whole statement is a reach. We know nothing about what happened.

All this specululation will get you nowhere. There are plenty of reasons for either or to have happened. If you just wait a little while, then it will come to light in the end. So relax, go fishing, don't get so worked up over something that we were not a part of. Best quote I've seen all day. Wait it out, then we can all join in calling him either a hero or a fraud......

Matt, Where did it say that all bass can live up to 25 years??? He said they can live to 25 years, which according to my research, is accurate. The oldest on record is 23, so I am sure some have lived to 25.

Look at the date on the article. It's from the last 20 pounder that was caught there, in 2003.....

Part of an article done about the lake.... Interesting read.... And Matt, notice the swimbait references..... --------------------------------------------------------------- SWIMBAITS SNOOKERED ALL 3 BIG BASS All three of these record catches came off a swimbait. Dickerson and Weakley landed their fish on 8-inch Mission Fish swimbaits. "I have had more luck fishing it slowly, like a worm, rather than swimming the bait," Dickerson offered. "Bouncing these things off rockpiles can be deadly." Long's swimbait of choice is the Castaic Trout. He says in clear water such as that at Dixon, "the more lifelike the trout the better off you are." Now that we know that bass in Lake Dixon can reach world-record proportions, let's take a look at how these fish can grow to such an enormous size, and why swimbaits are so effective in targeting them. The reason bass at Lake Dixon grow so big is rainbow trout, and more specifically, hatchery-raised rainbow trout. Trout are like a greasy double-bacon cheeseburger with large fries and a milk shake to a hungry bass. Dixon's big bass feed almost exclusively on trout during cold-weather months because these slow-swimming, one-shot meals are plentiful. Big bass don't like to compete with smaller, quicker bass as they pounce schools of shad or comb the shorelines for crawdads. Lake Dixon anglers are trying to land bass over 10 pounds, with 15-pound and bigger fish the actual target. Smaller fish, from 5 to 9 pounds, are much more aggressive than their older and wiser counterparts. In Dixon's clear water, you can see big bass cruising in 15 feet of water looking for that one- or two-trout meal. This is a bass that wants to get the maximum amount of nutrition for the least amount of energy. This is why bass in California grow as round as they do long. A bass that weights 5 pounds in a lake that does not stock trout, may double its weight if placed into a lake with trout. DEEP-WATER ACCESS Another factor for the explosive growth of bass at Dixon is that the bass can access deep water. While the lake covers just 70 surface acres, it extends to nearly 80 feet deep. A big bass feels safe in deep water, and will almost always choose a resting place with easy access to the deep blue. Big bass have gotten big by being around for a long time. In that time they have seen virtually every model of boat, lure, line or hook many times over. Conversely, they spook easily. Swimbaits range from 4 to 24 inches in length and are most likely patterned after rainbow trout. There are as many styles and designs of swimbaits as there are manufactures that make them. Some swimbaits are made of wood designed to crash along the surface. Many are a soft plastic and can be slowly fished down the contour of a lake's bottom. Many big-bass anglers won't fish a swimbait that is less than 6 inches long; most prefer swimbaits from 8 to 15 inches. The old adage "big bait, big fish" holds truer for big bass in southern California than most other game fish. A bass in Lake Dixon doesn't get that basketball-like physique streaking all over the shallows expending energy chasing a quicker, more agile prey than trout. In late fall the Department of Fish and Game starts to stock catchable-size trout from about 7 to 13 inches in length at Dixon and continues stocking them until warming water temperatures prevent their survival the following spring. Once Dixon is given its stocking schedule, it will usually be stocked on the same day of the week, every other week. When stocked into a lake, trout are disoriented and slow, and an easy meal for hungry bass. For the first or second day after being stocked, trout are acclimating to their new surroundings - an easy target for bass. In late fall and early winter big bass will hold off breaks or points, usually holding right on the edge of deep water. Then they can ambush a school of trout in shallow water or bolt to the deep if spooked. This ambush point a big bass will use will have easy access to deep water, but remember a big bass will be more than willing to venture into shallow water to chase a school of trout than any other prey.

Matt's right. they do not stock anything but trout, and maybe some catfish there. The reason the fish get so big there is genetics, and abundange of nice fat 1-3 pound rainbows dumped in weekly over a 5 month period....