Would you risk a monsters life to prove a record?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezyvQMuQjEU
I know everyone have different views on this subject in my opinion I wouldn’t risk a monsters life to prove ..even a world record.

I don’t get it. If you believe this fish’s existence is worth more than any other fish’s. Then do you take only the smaller ones, as if they are more expendable? It’s OK to admire one of Gods creatures, but not idolize it. It’s a fish, a really big fish, but just a fish.

I don’t think that’s risking the monster’s life. That’s ending the monster’s life.

If I had the skill and luck to catch a fish I was sure was the world or state record, it’s hard to say whether I’d release it or bonk it.

I don’t really understand why people have issues with keeping records. It’s ok to keep a bunch of smaller ones to eat, but not ok to keep one fish that’s literally ‘the fish of a lifetime’?

Quote:

---

I don’t get it. If you believe this fish’s existence is worth more than any other fish’s. Then do you take only the smaller ones, as if they are more expendable? It’s OK to admire one of Gods creatures, but not idolize it. It’s a fish, a really big fish, but just a fish.

---

Because some fish are statistically more likely to contribute positively to the gene pool?

Who’s to say one of the smaller ones in your frying pan wasn’t destined to be a world record?

What I meant was if I had the means to keep a fish alive til it’s verified that it’s a record I would But to keep it not knowing if it’s going to survive just to prove a record??

Exactly, this monster has obviously already made his contribution to the gene pool a thousand times over whereas the little ones we keep have’nt. Besides who’s to say that monster isn’t vacuming up all the walleye eggs? This subject can go round and round forever. Great fodder for those of us beatten back by the weather with our face in a computer.

Tough call. I agree that there’s probably no harm to the resource in taking ONE fish, even if it is the big kahuna. That fish’s DNA is all over the lake already anyway.

There are other things to worry about. Would you really, seriously want the world to know that a record fish came out of your favorite lake? Imagine the traffic after that happened. I also remember reading about the guy that caught the world record Smallie. After he claimed his record, he quit fishing and went into seclusion. He couldn’t handle all the people claiming he cheated somehow and he got tired of all the people following him around the lake! Same thing with the guy who caught the world record Striped Bass. People gave him so much grief, terrible.

Now the odds of me catching fish aren’t so hot to begin with, much less a record. But if I did catch something that big I might post a picture here on IDO and let it go and let everybody speculate about how big it really was.

Rootski

You guys must have glossed over the key word in my sentence. Statistically.

Why do farmers castrate bulls except for their prize bull?

I am basing my choice all on math, statistics and genetics.

What is the probability a record size catfish has record genes? What is the likelihood a smaller fish has those same genes?

Why do you think metro panfish are stunted? Because people keep the biggest ones with the biggest fillets. Fish with horrible genes for slow growth and small size get to mate season after season without being susceptible to being harvested.

Take this example. 2 fish are mutants. 1 grows incredibly fast and has the potential to reach massive size if left alone. The other is a mutant who’s stunted and lives a long time. Guess which one will have a bigger impact on the gene pool for many generations? Guess what kind of growth rate and size you can expect in the future as those genes continue to be passed on?

Man is the only species that monkeybuttizes natural selection. Other species randomly select the size of their prey or go for the weakest and smallest. We keep the biggest and healthiest.

If big flatheads ate walleye eggs, you just gave me another reason to let the big ones go.

I have always said I will not keep a potential record fish. I don’t compete with other fishermen, I compete against myself.

Personally I think catching a record fish is a lot of luck. Don’t get me wrong, I think that people who have broken records deserve it, have bragging rights and are rewarded for hard work and good decisions. However there is an amount of being fortunate involved.

MHO. NOt a rant or a lecture, just my 2 cents. Don’t take it the wrong way.

Quote:

---

What I meant was if I had the means to keep a fish alive til it’s verified that it’s a record I would But to keep it not knowing if it’s going to survive just to prove a record??

---

I believe in MN, if you are going to keep it to see if it is a record, you HAVE to kill it. I don’t think you can legally release it and I am not sure if you can weight it alive. At least that is what I have been told. I’d love to hear I was wrong.

Quote:

---

If big flatheads ate walleye eggs, you just gave me another reason to let the big ones go.

---

Hater

Quote:

---

No, ma nature knows how to regulate herself. This keeps the year class thinned out and not over populated leading to faster growth.

As far as you know. That’s my story and I am sticking to it.

Quote:

---

Why do you think metro panfish are stunted? Because people keep the biggest ones with the biggest fillets. Fish with horrible genes for slow growth and small size get to mate season after season without being susceptible to being harvested.

---

I think we’re in violent agreement here…no doubt bad genetics makes for a messed up fishery. But you have to admit that there was a time when that 130# Blue weighted 3 pounds and might have been eaten. If that body of water produced a 130# fish, I think there’s a reasonable chance that his or her genes are being carried around by another 3 pound fish that has the potential to reach great size. It’s also true that the best way to make sure that those genes get passed on is to let her go and reproduce next spring!

It seems to me that records and catch-and release are always going to be at odds with each other. My personal choice, I think C&R is the way to go.

Rootski

P.S. Pug we gotta go fishing sometime

In the words of a catfish farmer in South Caroline. “You gotta take those big ones home, cause they eat everything”.

If I got a fish I think is a record its coming home with me. Why release so the next guy can catch it and keep it? I dont even why it makes to anyone what one person wants to keep. As long as they aren’t breaking the law its their decision and we as fellow sportsmen should judge others for it.

If we all did C&R it wouldnt be good either!!

Even knowing that the fish will die…absolutely!!! If it is in fact a record, and I’ll assume that in this scenario there is no contesting that fact, then I will gladly take it out, prove the record, and have a REAL mount made. I will lose no sleep over it, unless its due to excitement!!!

Sure, I’d take it. A fish of that age is not very likely to have many more successful spawns. All its offspring in the 5-10lb range will have better spawns than that fish, it wouldnt hurt anything to take it out IMO.

Is the bigger question here really whether one feels the need to hold the record? Isn’t it just as good to get detailed measurements and pics and have the memory?

These are both questions I am not sure I can answer for myself, and probably couldn’t until I was holding a possible record in my hands. I like to think I’d release it just to know such a monster was still around, whether it be for one more week or 10 more years.

Again, hard to say until you’re put in the situation. Would it be different for you guys if it was a state record mooneye or flathead? Again, just something to think about.

If this was a walleye from Pool 4 we were talking about…something brown would hit the fan and it wouldn’t be sudden impact from BK’s boat…

If it makes the angler happy, keep it.

I find it ammuzing how we rate members of the animal community. We give such great reverence to size and weight. But, in our own species we despise humans who are the largest in our community. Which reminds me, I need to take my weight loss pill before I raid the refrigerator.

Quote:

---

I find it ammuzing how we rate members of the animal community. We give such great reverence to size and weight. But, in our own species we despise humans who are the largest in our community.

---

I lay in bed at night and think about thoughts like that.

Quote:

---

I find it ammuzing how we rate members of the animal community. We give such great reverence to size and weight. But, in our own species we despise humans who are the largest in our community. Which reminds me, I need to take my weight loss pill before I raid the refrigerator.

---

What are you talking about. I love women with big breasts.

For the record I return about 98% of what I catch. I usually keep a few bluegills, walleye, crappies once in a while.

When it comes to the resource, I’ll statistically give it the best opportunity to thrive. I’ll error on the side of caution.

One of the best things that happened to walleye was the term “eater”. People keep those 16-19 fish thinking it is the best size, letting the bigger fish go. I don’t think it is a coincidence that many walleye fisheries seem to be thriving better than they ever did, as far as quality is concerned.

Quote:

---

That fish’s DNA is all over the lake already anyway.

---

Gross.

How are you going to know what it tastes like if you don’t kill it?

I’ve always said I would release a fish I caught if it was a record. Then I hooked one in the back in current and had plenty of time to think about it while trying to get it to the boat. Never made a decision but I questioned myself.

On a side note, I was reading a paper on flathead spawning. One of the notes claimed that if 1 out of 1000 flats made it to one year old, it was a successful spawn.

Oh, the fish I snagged was 34 or 37 pounds.

Quote:

---

I’ve always said I would release a fish I caught if it was a record. Then I hooked one in the back in current and had plenty of time to think about it while trying to get it to the boat. Never made a decision but I questioned myself.

On a side note, I was reading a paper on flathead spawning. One of the notes claimed that if 1 out of 1000 flats made it to one year old, it was a successful spawn.

Oh, the fish I snagged was 34 or 37 pounds.

---

Snagger…

I sure would!!!

Do you think Raquel Welsh’s eggs are still good.Record or not it would still be a trophy I’d mount. Those eggs are out of the gene pool.

Quote:

---

Do you think Raquel Welsh’s eggs are still good.Record or not it would still be a trophy I’d mount. Those eggs are out of the gene pool.

---

In the name of science, I would volunteer to find out I ‘spose.

Well, this thread sure took a turn for the weird.