Another state record fish is a fraud

People getting caught faking record fish and tournament winning fish has become so common these days. Here’s a new one.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/fishing/disqualified-kansas-record-crappie-stuffed-with-ball-bearings/

It makes you wonder how often this happened back in the day and the people just never got caught. I know photos can be deceiving but I’ve seen pictures of several so-called record fish that just didn’t look like the weight matched the size.

And it astonishes me too that people think they can get away with this crap in this day and age.

Yeah, its like the world record musky. There is no chance that fish was as heavy as good ole Louis Spray said it was.

In the 70’s there was a bait and tackle store near me that had a weekly big fish contest. The owner was a family friend and even though he intentionally kept the prize low in dollar value to minimize cheating, the amount of fish stuffed with lead weight was amazing. I guess it isn’t always about what you win (think Ohio walleye tourney cheats), but it’s about bragging rights too.

Spray and Len Hartman (and perhaps others) had long time rivalry for the heaviest Muskie. These guys were stuffing car parts into the fish to boost weight.

Sylvanboat wrote:

These guys were stuffing car parts into the fish to boost weight.

Seriously?

The cheating to win tournament money I can see the incentive there, but stuffing a crappie to make it a state record? wtf who cares

Sylvanboat wrote:

Spray and Len Hartman (and perhaps others) had long time rivalry for the heaviest Muskie. These guys were stuffing car parts into the fish to boost weight.

You’re tellin me this fish wasn’t 70 pounds?!?! Looks closer to 80 to me lol what a picture

Attachments:

1. 

   1110000569-l.jpg
   

WE GOT WEIGHTS IN FISH !!!

The craziest part to me is that people are OK living with the lie their whole life. I would get ZERO enjoyment out of having a record fish that was a fraud.

just make the penalties for cheating too much to risk…

Take away their ability to purchase a hunting & fishing license for the rest of their life and if subsequently caught hunting or fishing without a license make the fines ridiculously painful…

If the angler does catch a potential record fish, they should have to turn it over at the time of the official weighing for official state validation…incentivize the shop doing the weighing to follow the process…

Doesn’t seem too difficult….

You’re tellin me this fish wasn’t 70 pounds?!?! Looks closer to 80 to me lol what a picture
[/quote]
Love the eye gouge hold….

JoeMX1825 wrote:

Love the eye gouge hold….

My grandpa and dad always used to hold northerns like that.

So many bogus ‘records’.

I used to live and fish in Oklahoma where the state ‘record’ northern Pike was 36 pounds. This behemoth was allegedly caught by a migrant farm worker at 2:30 in the morning while fishing off the bank. Here’s a photo of the fish.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_3190.jpeg
   

The state record walleye for Iowa always seemed suspect as well. A 14.5 pound 29” fish caught in September. Huh, I have a hard time believing that.

Steven Krapfl wrote:

The state record <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye for Iowa always seemed suspect as well. A 14.5 pound 29” fish caught in September. Huh, I have a hard time believing that.

Yeah, no chance.

Probably had a big, heavy meal just prior to getting weighed.lol

No lie, I’ve had people try to cheat on a free to enter and no prize contest.

I’ve decided who my least favorite people are in this world.

And it’s people

The fishing record books are pointless.

There’s no standard process or guarantees to validity when you look at the sheer number of potential locations for both catching and weighing fish over decades. If people were willing to lie/cheat in the years prior to social media marketing, the internet, television, and so on to just make themselves feel better (as evidenced in many of the old photos of “record” fish), imagine the incentives to cheat now with likes, clicks, views, sponsorships, etc.

I wouldn’t call them pointless, but agree there hasn’t been enough scrutiny in the past to verify that they were legit.

A good buddy of mine broke the MN state record Coho Salmon on his boat last fall (a client reeled it in). It was 110% legit.

I love the long arm pic, he’s almost as good at it as me

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20240219-110715.png
   

Looks like Parkhurst is a stand up guy with only 5 felonies to his record.

Why are they not prosecuting?

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Looks like Parkhurst is a stand up guy with only 5 felonies to his record.

I saw that too! Sounds like he was already a criminal, literally.

I find it interesting that he willingly let authorities into his home to check the fish. Almost as if he accepted that they would find out what he did. Maybe he just didn’t care at that point anymore, or he was too dumb to realize they would see what he did.

Just a note on state records, at least here in MN. The DNR is re-classifying every single state record that pre-dates 1980 as a “historical record” since the rules for entering a state record prior to that were very loose. You didn’t even need a photo, a witness, or certified scale to receive credit. They are also adding new species every year for the next four years to the C & R Length category starting this year.

I find it interesting that he willingly let authorities into his home to check the fish. Almost as if he accepted that they would find out what he did. Maybe he just didn’t care at that point anymore, or he was too dumb to realize they would see what he did.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the latter.

gimruis wrote:

Just a note on state records, at least here in MN. The DNR is re-classifying every single state record that pre-dates 1980 as a “historical record” since the rules for entering a state record prior to that were very loose. You didn’t even need a photo, a witness, or certified scale to receive credit. They are also adding new species every year for the next four years to the C & R Length category starting this year.

Have you found any actual information on this? I saw it got some newspaper coverage last year in May and then it has been quiet since.

hossfisher wrote:

Have you found any actual information on this?

Yes, I saw the updated species they plan to add to this category each of the next few years. I’ll try to find it and post it for you here.

I can’t find anything on it dated in 2024. The most recent information I can find is still from 2023. This is what it says.

Expanding Catch and Release
The other significant piece of the DNR’s recent proposal is the expansion of its “catch-and-release” record category. The category was established six years ago in response to demands from conservation-minded anglers—some of whom complained that they’d rather set a record-sized fish free instead of killing it just to have their name in a record book.

With catch-and-release records, anglers don’t have to make that choice. Unlike traditional weight-based records, which require the fish to be brought in and weighed on a certified scale, all that is needed for potential catch-and-release records are quality photos of the fish, length and girth measurements, and a witness.

Read Next: Minnesota Angler Catches Monster Muskie from Lake Mille Lacs, Sets New Catch-and-Release Record

The DNR now has a separate application process for catch-and-release records. And with more anglers preaching about conservation ethics these days, the agency feels a need to expand the category. As it stands now, only four species are eligible for a catch-and-release record: flathead catfish, lake sturgeon, muskellunge, and northern pike. The DNR is proposing to add a total of 18 species to this list over a three-year span, as follows:

2024: Blue sucker, bowfin, channel catfish, freshwater drum, shovelnose sturgeon, and tiger muskie.

2025: Bigmouth buffalo, lake trout, largemouth bass, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, and smallmouth buffalo.

2026: Brook trout, brown trout, longnose gar, sauger, shortnose gar, and walleye.

The end goal here is to give anglers the opportunity to seek record recognition while still practicing catch and release. This ethical consideration helps maintain healthy fisheries, and it’s especially important when managing for trophy species like lake trout and muskie, which grow very large very slowly, and make poor table fare anyways. It’s less critical when catching walleye, sauger, and other species, and the DNR has clarified that it will continue to support the regulated harvest of sustainable fish stocks.

“That’s the one thing we want to emphasize, too,” Fisher said of the agency’s proposal. “We’re not out here saying everybody should be doing catch and release. Is it a great opportunity to catch and release these large fish? Sure. That’s part of why we want to do the catch-and-release options, but we’re also not averse to harvest.”

gimruis wrote:

I can’t find anything on it dated in 2024. The most recent information I can find is still from 2023. This is what it says.

Thanks! Looks similar to the article I read. I guess we’ll wait and see what the 2024 regulation book has to say.

The submission form for the four species that are currently eligible for a C & R State Record (pure strain muskie, flathead catfish, lake sturgeon, and northern pike) is still the same on the DNR’s website. So to me that is an indication that the species they were intending to add in 2024 has not been updated yet.

I would expect an update in the next 30 days though, as the 2023 regulations expire on Feb 29, 2024.

gimruis wrote:

Just a note on state records, at least here in MN. The DNR is re-classifying every single state record that pre-dates 1980 as a “historical record” since the rules for entering a state record prior to that were very loose. You didn’t even need a photo, a witness, or certified scale to receive credit. They are also adding new species every year for the next four years to the C & R Length category starting this year.

I’ve heard the rumors and can’t wait for this to happen. 100% in support. The state record black crappie and the weight of it is very questionable (i could believe the length). With out needing a whiteness was it actually a black or a hybrid? Plus looking into it, no photos and the mount that was apparently made was lost.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Why are they not prosecuting?

I’m not trying to defend a grade-a scumbag, but what charges could they actually bring on him?

10klakes wrote:

I’ve heard the rumors and can’t wait for this to happen. 100% in support. The state record black crappie and the weight of it is very questionable (i could believe the length). With out needing a whiteness was it actually a black or a hybrid? Plus looking into it, no photos and the mount that was apparently made was lost.

Ya I agree, some of these older state records are sketchy at best. The northern pike one from basswood lake is another one that really raises some eyebrows.

I’m all for releasing a potential state record caliber fish. I regularly target tiger muskie so that one peaks my interest if its added this year. I am just not sure if I have to disclose the lake I caught it on, as the lakes I frequent for them are not very big and if revealed they would receive a lot more pressure.