IGFA Will Consider Mac Weakley's Bass 2024

roadwarrior reply :

An official for the International Game Fish Association said today that the 25 -pound 1-ounce bass caught by Mac Weakley will get consideration as

The World Record!

KU_Bassmaster. reply :

The old record has tons of controversy, why not the NEW one!!!! ;D Although the new one would have much less to do with the fish and more with the technicalities of how it was caught.

Vermonster reply :

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....

Matt Fly reply :

Even if foul hooked?

http://www.escondido.org/glance/lakes/dixon/index.html

Scroll down till you hit world record bass and see the inside article posted by the lake itself. Or click the other one for the story.

http://www.escondido.org/glance/lakes/dixon/record-bass.pdf

Matt Fly reply :

Does the IGFA say anywhere, "that all state laws must be observed to be credited? Because its against Ca. law to obtain a fish that wasn't caught in the mouth. They should have gotten cited for not releasing the fish immediately.

Captain Cali reply :

WOW...That surprises me.

grahamb reply :

Quote
Does the IGFA say anywhere, "that all state laws must be observed to be credited? Because its against Ca. law to obtain a fish that wasn't caught in the mouth. They should have gotten cited for not releasing the fish immediately.

Yes, local laws must be followed.

But the way you say it, if I'm throwing a lure and accidentally snag a fish, I just broke a law?

I'd guess that CA law says that it is illegal to intentionally foul hook/snag, and any fish that is accidentally foul hooked must be released...which is why these guys couldn't keep the fish to have it officially weighed.

Matt Fly reply :

The law is broken once you retain the fish.

Valascus reply :

Im didn't realize that they had used a digital scale to weigh the fish. The rules in the IGFA concerning the certification of a digital scale are really rough. They may have trouble getting that scale certified. The IGFA themselves recommend against using a digital scale.

Valascus reply :

Is the law broken as soon as you remove the foul hook and retain the fish in order to take some video and pics and then release it...or is it broken if you don't release the foul hooked fish at all?

Vermonster reply :

Quote
The law is broken once you retain the fish.

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

Matt Fly reply :

You might get by with a picture, but putting a stringer on the fish shows retention or putting a fish in the livewell would be considered retention.

Lake Fork has a slot inplace on the lake, 16-24 inches, if it touches the line at 16", and you keep it, its a fine if caught, if the fish is over the line at 24 inches its okay, touching 24" and not over, not okay..

I have caught fish that went 10 lbs on Fork, but didn't make it over the slot, could I hold this fish and show my buddies at camp, legally no. Or the camera is in the truck, and you go back to get it, retaining that fish is illegal.

Captain Cali reply :

Yeah...I don't think it's illegal to snap a few pics and weigh the sucker. It's not like you have to unhook the fish and let it go right away. The question is how long did they hold the fish before releasing it. It sounds like not long although rumors are flying like you don't even know.

Matt Fly reply :

read the article I posted from lake Dixon. Those guys put her on a stringer, thats retention.

Hula Popper reply :

I read it. I think it is legit, and should be a record. But I don't know any of the laws.

Rattletrap reply :

Sorry Cali. :-[ If it was not weighed on certified scales and witnessed, it won't count for anything. I can't believe, even if it was foul hooked, that this so called Big Bass hunter did not weigh it on certified scales anyway. That was plum crazy!!! But, it does let you know that a possible WR might be swimming around in Dixon Lake. Keep on fishing Cali boys!!!!

sportmed22 reply :

I think one of the problems foul hooked aside is that we have not seen a picture of the fish hanging from the digital scale with the read out showing 25.1. I would like to hear from a Cal game warden on the interpretation of the law. I think some people are just jealous that someone has broken the record. Give the man props he caught a TANK.

Rattletrap reply :

He caught a tank all right, but there is no solid proof that it was a 25lber. He blew his chances of staking that claim. A so-called Big Bass hunter should have known better. It's a big fish. But the photo looks like all the other big bass caught in Cali. No photos, no measurements. That's what's fishy about it. I would have taken some sure measures to prove that I foul hooked and released the new WR. You would think Cali boys would have learned that from George Perry's WR issues.

Captain Cali reply :

No need to be sorry rattletrap. We know California has bigger bass than Georgia. We don't need WR status to know that. Sounds like a bit of jealousy to me but I can't blame ya. When was the last 20 pounder caught in Georgia? If my memory is not shot I think it was the bass George W. Perry caught or didn't catch.

Give the man his due. Until proven otherwise we have to see this as the biggest largemouth ever caught. PERIOD.

Rumors are flying around like no tomorrow. It seems like every hour there is a new rumor. I'm not going to get into that because I'm not about to slander anyone. Everyone knows rumors spread quicker than the truth.

what reply :

i haerd that there was a video and people watching the wirgh in and they put it on stringer because the rules say that it has to weighed on land :-?

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
No need to be sorry rattletrap. We know California has bigger bass than Georgia. We don't need WR status to know that. Sounds like a bit of jealousy to me but I can't blame ya. When was the last 20 pounder caught in Georgia? If my memory is not shot I think it was the bass George W. Perry caught or didn't catch.
Give the man his due. Until proven otherwise we have to see this as the biggest largemouth ever caught. PERIOD.

Rumors are flying around like no tomorrow. It seems like every hour there is a new rumor. I'm not going to get into that because I'm not about to slander anyone. Everyone knows rumors spread quicker than the truth.

No jealousy here. It's just funny how a So-called Cali, Big Bass hunter can make so many mistakes. It's also funny how how George Perry's mistakes don't apply here on this recent catch. It starting to look like an at your convenience thing. A photo and witnesses don't make for a WR these days. BTW. George Perry's WR would not stick in 2006 either. I could show you a photo of a big bass with some witnesses and say it's a 25lber. That won't make it a 25lber or a WR.

buzzbaitfool12 reply :

Sounds like to me the intentionally hooked the fish wrong and the bystanders saw it and they knew they wouldnt get away with it..If they would have been by themselves I guaranteed no controversy,they would be getting paid..there is a difference between catching and hooking a bass intentionally like it sounds to me..If it is accepted as the wr then I bet we will never see that record broken in our lifetime..So far as cali having bigger fish once again if we stocked lakes with trout like you guys do then we would have mighty monsters also..Seems like pumping up is really prevalent in cali..barry bonds and fish..lol

Madhouse27 reply :

After reading up on things I kind of gathered that they believed the foul hooked aspect of the catch would negate and world record status. They decided to weigh the beast and take a few pics anyway because it was so huge. I was under the impression that they weren't even going to submit it for record status until someone said hold the phone, this thing might be recognized anyway. I'm sure in the craziness of this whole situation it would be easy to make a few bad judgements. I think I would have put it in my livewell and called the game wardens and told them that I don't know what to do. I don't want to break any laws but this might be history in the making please advise me of how to handle this. ITS A MADHOUUUUSSSSE!!!

roadwarrior reply :

Wait a minute guys.

These boys are not slugs, they have been fishing for and catching GIANT bass for years. Maybe they just did what they thought was right. Mac Weakley is not trying to take all the credit, his friends have already caught the same bass, and THEY LET IT GO!

Let's see how things shake out. Maybe Mac is a hero and the poster boy for catch and release. Is there something wrong with that?

KYbass1276 reply :

Quote
.So far as cali having bigger fish once again if we stocked lakes with trout like you guys do then we would have mighty monsters also..Seems like pumping up is really prevalent in cali..barry bonds and fish..lol

Let's not go down that road agin about stocking trout. That was a long debate on the last post about the wr

Captain Cali reply :

Like I said, we don't need the WR status to know where the bigger bass are. Debates about trout stocking are meaningless because this bass could have been killed at 20 pounds, twice, but was released to grow some and spawn some more. Who knows how many times this fish was caught as a 1 to 10 pounder and it could have been killed then also. I doubt it was caught only 3 times and as a 20+ pound fish. Catch & Release is the key here boys. Trout stocking would mean nothing if we did not C&R.

How many of you would have killed this fish if you caught her at 20 pounds? I'm willing to bet it would go 50/50 or pretty close.

Don't get me wrong, the trout do help. There is no doubt about that.

KYbass1276 reply :

Do they even stock trout in that lake surely they don't stock all the lakes out there do they. If it turns out theres no trout stocked there then there is no reason for that to be a issue anyway

Captain Cali reply :

Quote
Do they even stock trout in that lake surely they don't stock all the lakes out there do they. If it turns out theres no trout stocked there then there is no reason for that to be a issue anyway

Yes, the lake is stocked with Rainbow Trout in the winter and spring months when water temps permit.

If this is accepted as the WR, bring on the asterik debate!

But you're right, not every lake gets stocked with trout and some big bass have been caught in lakes that don't get stocked like Hodges. A 20-5 was caught there 1985.

roadwarrior reply :

C'mon.

We have over 4,000 members on the forum. It ain't 50/50, but there might be a couple of guys that would have released THE WORLD RECORD!

Rattletrap reply :

I released two WR's here in Georgia. I did want to upstage George Perry.

Captain Cali reply :

25/75? RW, You're probably right. 50/50 is a high number. I was just trying to make a point. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

Cephkiller reply :

Quote
Sounds like to me the intentionally hooked the fish wrong and the bystanders saw it and they knew they wouldnt get away with it..If they would have been by themselves I guaranteed no controversy,they would be getting paid..there is a difference between catching and hooking a bass intentionally like it sounds to me..

Unfortunately, that is my impression as well. If the catch was legit, I don't think the details would be sketchy as they are now. They would have certified the fish properly.

Captain Cali reply :

Quote
read the article I posted from lake Dixon. Those guys put her on a stringer, thats retention.

I was finally able to pull that up. I think you're getting a little technical here Matt. From my understanding these rental boats don't have livewells, which if the fish was placed in one would still be considered retention right? They did the right thing by keeping the fish in the water as much as possible. The way I read it that was the only reason for the stringer.

abelfisher reply :

MattFly,

What do you suggest, throw those ol boys in jail because they "retained" a Friggin World Record bass to take some pictures and weigh it...??

Rattletrap reply :

World record. That remains to be heard. It's just a big fish that people say weighed 25lbs. A photo of a big bass. That's all they have. 25lb. No way. 20-21 lbs is more like.

KU_Bassmaster. reply :

Quote
World record. That remains to be heard. It's just a big fish that people say weighed 25lbs. A photo of a big bass. That's all they have. 25lb. No way. 20-21 lbs is more like.

Watch the video on Sportscenter tonight. They have the video of the fish on the scale and the scale reads 25 something.

abelfisher reply :

Quote
World record. That remains to be heard. It's just a big fish that people say weighed 25lbs. A photo of a big bass. That's all they have. 25lb. No way. 20-21 lbs is more like.

I think I am more apt to believe a digital scale actually weighing the fish than someone sitting thousands of miles away saying 20-21 pounds. But that's just me. Besides I don't get all the slamming of this guy. Hell, he's a fisherman just like we are. The guy obviously has had much success in the past and is well known fisheman in the area. Give him a break!l

RoLo reply :

Quote
They may have trouble getting that scale certified. The IGFA themselves recommend against using a digital scale.

A scale is deemed "certified" only if it has been calibrated before the weigh-in.

In fact the date of re-calibration must be submitted. I have never heard of calibrating a scale

after the weigh-in. Whose is in possession of that scale???? Calibrating the scale now

would not confirm it's accuracy during the weigh-in.

Another bugbear that hasn't been addressed is the absence of a state biologist.

In Florida at least, a state official "must" confirm the species in-person as an eye-witness.

Many state records have been denied due to this infraction alone. Also, I seriously doubt

that the IGFA would allow a photograph to substitute for the corpse. I've read too many instances

where the IGFA failed to sanction record fish with fewer breaches than this fish.

Not to mention that this fish was also foul-hooked!! If the IGFA sanctions this bass,

my attention would turn to the "IGFA", not the bass (ain't gonna happen).

Roger

fishbonz reply :

You should hear the witness's story and I think you will have a different view of these guys catch.

Dock Watcher

Weakley's Catch As

Barnett Witnessed It

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Photo: Mac Weakley

Mac Weakley's monster, held here by friend Mike Winn, was released from the dock at Lake Dixon.

Yesterday (Mon., March 20, 2006), California angler Mac Weakley caught a largemouth bass from Lake Dixon that could have been the new all-tackle world record.

On a handheld scale, shown through videotape evidence, the fish weighed 25-01, which was nearly 3 pounds heavier than the previous record of 22-04 set by George Perry of Georgia in 1932.

Weakley released the fish before it could be weighed on a certified scale, and without measuring the fish. The reason? It was foul-hooked.

Various news sources have printed differing accounts of what transpired yesterday morning. another site has yet to speak with Weakley, but what follows in an eyewitness account from 18-year-old Steve Barnett of Rancho Bernardo, Calif.

Sunday Spotting

The story begins not yesterday, but the day before, when the behemoth was found by a young angler. Barnett said his brother Dan was a witness that day.

"My brother Dan was there with his friend Boon and they were fishing and saw Kyle on the fish," Barnett said. "Jed (Dickerson) and Mac (Weakley) and possibly Mike Winn were there. I guess they were out on the docks talking and Mac pulled out $1,000 cash and said he'd give it to Kyle, who was originally on the fish.

"Dan and Boon were standing right next to him, and Dan told me, 'Mac pulled $1,000 cash out, and said it's for Kyle if he gets off the fish.'"

So to recap, according to Barnett, his brother Dan was at Dixon on Sunday, where he saw the young angler Kyle (last name unknown) fishing to the potential world record, after which Weakley offered $1,000 to Kyle if he'd get off the fish.

Monday Morning

Barnett and his brother started high school at 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, which gave them plenty of time to fish the first hour at Dixon.

"So we got up there super early we were the first in line, ready to go in the lake," Barnett said. "Once the ranger opened the gate, we drove down to the lake and Dan jumped right out of the car with his rod the fish was almost fishable from the dock.

"We got there and then Jed and Mac and Mike were already there. We thought, 'What the heck? What's going on?' We were kind of bummed out. Apparently they did it with some kind of camping pass, which lets you go before everybody else.

"All we could do was sit there and watch."

The Connection

From the dock, Barnett said he had a clear view of Weakley's presentation, hookset and landing. Note that the fish was bedding in clear water.

"After less than an hour, Mac swung for the first time," Barnett said. "He ended up swinging a total of five times, and on the fifth swing he got it. (The swings) were on separate casts. He'd do a flip here, a flip there, then a swing.

"I was counting. And he was using the same bait, which is really rare for a fish to be so interested in the same bait.

"(Dickerson) did throw his Mission Fish in there once, but didn't swing."

According to Barnett, Weakley connected on his fifth swing. "They got the fish and it went straight out to deep water like a tow truck. They yelled, 'Get the net! Get the net!'

"Right before they netted it, Dan and I saw the fish. It was foul-hooked down the left side of the fish, right next to the dorsal fin."

The trio netted the fish about 10 feet away from the dock. "They were flipping out," Barnett said. "Then they said, 'We have to go talk to our lawyer.' So they went out to the middle of the lake.

"After 15 minutes they came back. I was talking with I believe it was Mac, but I can't say I'm positive. It was either Mac or Jed. One of the two came up it's the only blurry memory and they were standing with me and Dan, and (Mac or Jed) said something like, 'Yeah, there's a weird mark on its side.'

Barnett added: "I don't know why he said that, because Dan asked him before what they were going to do with it because it was foul-hooked. I don't know it was trippy, a little weird."

Photo: Jed Dickerson

Weakley's fish is assumed to be the same fish Jed Dickerson caught in 2003 (pictured here).

Barnett said his brother Dan then brought attention again to the foul hook. "They said, 'I don't know about this mark what's up with that?' But Dan's like, 'Yeah, that's where you foul-hooked it."

At that point, Barnett noted there was some silence, then he remembers Mac saying, "Hey, just let the fish go get rid of it."

But there had not been a photo taken of the fish yet, nor measurements. And it hadn't been weighed on a certified scale, which would have been delivered to Dixon on request.

Barnett said: "Everybody's saying he's got to get a picture, but Mac was getting antsy to get the fish back. They even asked him to get a measurement. Mike Winn said they had to have a measurement. Mac said they didn't need it they'd already gotten one a couple years ago (see Notable)."

Barnett said of the release: "They let it go and it went straight down. It was the biggest fish I've ever seen in my life. And it was obviously the biggest one I've ever touched. I took the rope stringers off for the picture, and Mike Winn was holding the fish.

"When the thing was sitting in the water, an inch or two of its back was out of the water. When it was breathing, water was just rushing out back of its gills."

After the release, Barnett noted that he, Mac and the rest of the people on the dock "talked for a little while. It was cool. They're pretty cool guys."

Fair or Foul?

There's no doubt the fish was foul-hooked. Weakley has readily admitted that. But was it intentionally foul-hooked?

Barnett said: "Every guy I've spoken with has asked me that same question. All I can say to every person is, they were working their jigs and doing sweet stuff. They were doing some pretty enticing things with their jig shaking it pretty good.

"A lot of times they were working it into a bed, then dead-sticking it for a while, then they'd start working it again. All they told me at the end of it was, 'When you get a big fish like that, that noses up on your bait, you don't want to take the chance you have to swing."

Barnett added: "I didn't say anything to that, but I didn't agree with it. I would have felt the fish before I swung, but I don't think he tried to snag it."

chitwnbass reply :

Just a question... If this guy Weakley is such a stand up guy and supposedly caught this WR bass and had it weighed/photoed/videoed but then felt bad about foul hooking it and released it why is he applying for the record with the IGFA??? I've heard a lot of praise for him being so conservation minded for releasing it and being such an honest guy for admitting he foul hooked it and if all of this is on the level then great. But when exactly does he deserve the consideration for catching the WR bass? Am I missing something? Foul hooked non-certified scale, no measurements and no examination by a biologist. Shouldn't these three things pretty much DQ this catch? If not I would think some underhanded person could just catch a large bass, picture it, stuff it full of lead weight, weigh it, video it and then release it only to collect the WR. I have nothing against Weakley and think it was a great catch regardless but when it comes to the WR there have to be strict rules and regulations that need to be followed in order to keep the records righteous.

cart7t reply :

Another little rule not adhered to was the witnessing of the weight (on certified scale) by a IFGA approved person, IE: biologist, Fish & Game Warden. At least the Perry bass had that on his side and the scales used (IIRC) was a postal scale or something of better accuracy than some Walmart Chinese made digital fish scale.

I'm all for a new record but this one has too many caveats involved. I only wish these guys had legitimately caught the thing.

cart7t reply :

Quote
Just a question... If this guy Weakley is such a stand up guy and supposedly caught this WR bass and had it weighed/photoed/videoed but then felt bad about foul hooking it and released it why is he applying for the record with the IGFA??? I've heard a lot of praise for him being so conservation minded for releasing it and being such an honest guy for admitting he foul hooked it and if all of this is on the level then great. But when exactly does he deserve the consideration for catching the WR bass? Am I missing something? Foul hooked non-certified scale, no measurements and no examination by a biologist. Shouldn't these three things pretty much DQ this catch? If not I would think some underhanded person could just catch a large bass, picture it, stuff it full of lead weight, weigh it, video it and then release it only to collect the WR. I have nothing against Weakley and think it was a great catch regardless but when it comes to the WR there have to be strict rules and regulations that need to be followed in order to keep the records righteous.

All very legitimate questions.

roadwarrior reply :

Mac Wealley and his bass just made the CBS Morning News!

"And howd' it taste? He threw it back."

Rattletrap reply :

It's awesome that he caught a big bass. I just wish he had not made so many rookie mistakes at getting this fish ceritified. He was supposed to be a seasoned, Big Bass hunting veteran, who you would have thought would have had every IGFA certified tool to qualify a possible WR. It's just ashame that he blew his chances at a possible certfied top 3 ranking or better. :'(

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
Mac Wealley and his bass just made the CBS Morning News!
"And howd' it taste? He threw it back."

I would have filleted it and fried up the egg roe. Mmmm, Mmmm goooood.

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
Watch the video on Sportscenter tonight. They have the video of the fish on the scale and the scale reads 25 something.

Now we have video proof that he caught a big bass. Now we have video proof of him blowing his chances at a WR. Poor guy.... :'(

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
Ray Scott, the founder of BASS and an advisor to the IGFA, says they shouldn't even bother. Nobody wants to see the record broken more than I do. I'm as enthralled with the record pursuit as anyone. But there are certain things you have to do to certify the record. These guysespecially these guys who've been after the record for a whileknew what those steps were and they didn't do it, referring to the lack of measurements and failure to use an IGFA-certified scale.

Quote
Scott, known as the godfather of catch-and-release fishing, makes an exception to his philosophy for the most venerable world records, like that for the largemouth bass. If you catch the record bass, you have to have the corpse, he says. Without it, we'll never know for sure. Now only God knows.

I agree...........

Matt Fly reply :

Quote

Quote
read the article I posted from lake Dixon. Those guys put her on a stringer, thats retention.

I was finally able to pull that up. I think you're getting a little technical here Matt. From my understanding these rental boats don't have livewells, which if the fish was placed in one would still be considered retention right? They did the right thing by keeping the fish in the water as much as possible. The way I read it that was the only reason for the stringer.

I was asked a simple question as to what retention would be considered as.

I answered it. And Yes, the Cali Dept of Fish and Game laws were broken by catching this fish outside the mouth. And retaining said fish. And the hook wasn't close to the mouth as it was the dorsal according to the article of the guy who caught fish. Which I posted the article and picture of scales yesterday.

Rattletrap reply :

I have foul hooked a few bass in my time. A single hook white jig in the Dorsal fin. Hmmmm....There might be some snagging off the beds going on in Cali. I sure hope that's not the case. Did they go out in the boat to discuss if there was a visible hook mark in the Dorsal fin, hoping the IGFA guys would not notice it? It gets fishier by the minute. : IMO. I believe that if there was nothing illegal going on that they would have cerified that Bass the IGFA way. :-?

Vermonster reply :

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.

Rattletrap reply :

If you look at the photos side by side, Dickerson's bass appears bigger.

RoLo reply :

Quote
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......

I'm not matt, but it goes without saying, any fish that is not legal must be released immediately

back into the water (A little thing called "discipline", now apparently on the endangered list).

Quote
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.

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 anglers

who were feverishly pitching treble hooks at a visible cow? I see no heros either.

Quote
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".

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

Vermonster reply :

[quote author=RoLo link=1142978655/40#51 date=1143042637

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
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".

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

Rattletrap reply :

What were they discussing on there little get together on their boat. Removing the weights, or doctoring up the snag marks. ;D

Valascus reply :

What scales can IGFA certify? IGFA can certify scales up to 100 lb. This means that all hand-held spring

scales and digital scales can be submitted for certification. Dial-face scales in the lower ranges can be

certified as well. Those in the higher ranges can be certified by state agencies. Heavy-duty digital scales can be certified (and adjusted) by the manufacturers.

How does IGFA certify a scale? Every scale goes through a test where known weights are hung on the scale, and the readouts are noted. I usually test each scale at 5-lb intervals. To be certified, a scale must not be off by more than one increment. Spring scales and dial-face scales pass this test for the most part. If the scale does not pass the test, it is usually because of age rather than poor quality.

Hand-held digital scales get a 2nd test. The scale is zeroed out, a mid-range weight is placed on it and a

reading is taken. This is done three times. These three tests must match the reading in the first test, meaning all four tests must be the same. If there are any differences from one test to another, then the scale cannot be certified due to inconsistencies. A large portion of hand-held digital scales is not certifiable due to a failure in one or both of these tests.

What scales can IGFA recommend? IGFA cannot recommend any particular brand of scale, but we can

recommend a style to give an idea of what is available and what to look for. What works best for anglers

depends on how they will be using the scale. Individuals going out to catch and release fish for potential world records should use hand-held spring scales. They are portable, they are accurate and they are sturdy. It is up to the anglers to determine which scale would work best. They would want to get a scale that is big enough to weigh the fish they are attempting to catch. Using a 100-lb scale (with 1-lb increments) to weigh 5-lb fish would not benefit the angler. Remember estimated weights are not permitted. If the scale reading is between two marks, the angler must round down to the heaviest known weight. On a scale with 1-lb increments, the angler could lose up to 15 oz. Using a scale

that has 1 or 2 oz increments would be the best option for that particular angler. Marinas or weigh stations would want to get either a dial-face scale, or a heavy-duty digital scale, depending on the species and weights of fish they expect to weigh at that location. These scales would be permanent, to an extent, since they are not easily portable. If the marina expects to weigh fish in the 100-200

lb range, then a dial-face scale would be the best bet. If the marina expects billfish and shark, etc., then the heavy-duty digital scales would be the ones to get.

Certification information:

1. Only IGFA members can have their personal scales certified. This includes Associate members,

Regular members, Junior members and Lifetime members. Certified Guides and Captains and Certified

Weigh Stations can have their scales certified. Of course, it must be no larger than 100 lb.

2. The cost is $30 per scale. If they include a FedEx or UPS number, then the return postage fee is waived. Certified Weigh Stations pay no certification fee- it is covered in their yearly membership fee. Certified Guides and Captains pay a discounted fee of $24.60.

3. If a member brings in the scale in person, it takes about 5 minutes to certify a scale. If they drop it off, it can be shipped to them or they can pick it up the next time they visit. If a scale is sent in to IGFA, the scale will be on its way back within one or two weeks.

Captain Cali reply :

rattletrap, all that stuff is rumors right now. Every hour it's changing so hold tight before you come to any conclusions. What I don't understand is how some witnesses are more credible than these anglers to some people. What makes a witness any more credible than the guys who caught her? There is so much motivation from both sides it's hard to tell what is what.

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
rattletrap, all that stuff is rumors right now. Every hour it's changing so hold tight before you come to any conclusions. What I don't understand is how some witnesses are more credible than these anglers to some people. What makes a witness any more credible than the guys who caught her? There is so much motivation from both sides it's hard to tell what is what.

:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

Captain Cali reply :

Quote

Quote

Quote
read the article I posted from lake Dixon. Those guys put her on a stringer, thats retention.

I was finally able to pull that up. I think you're getting a little technical here Matt. From my understanding these rental boats don't have livewells, which if the fish was placed in one would still be considered retention right? They did the right thing by keeping the fish in the water as much as possible. The way I read it that was the only reason for the stringer.

I was asked a simple question as to what retention would be considered as.

I answered it. And Yes, the Cali Dept of Fish and Game laws were broken by catching this fish outside the mouth. And retaining said fish. And the hook wasn't close to the mouth as it was the dorsal according to the article of the guy who caught fish. Which I posted the article and picture of scales yesterday.

You don't think you're getting technical here? Technically the law was broken, but I also drove 75mph on the freeway last night. The speed limit is 65mph. I broke the law too. :

Here is a quote from a DFG warden from the article Vermonster provided:

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.

Rattletrap reply :

Hmmmm. So, if accidently foul hook a bass. Could I get busted for possession during the time I'm trying to get the hook out to release the bass? Nope. Possession is not the issue because they released the bass. The mistakes made in not properly certfying the bass is what amazes me. I would have liked to have had certified proof that I released an illegal, foul hooked, WR bass. That would be my bragging rights.

RoLo reply :

Quote
What makes a witness any more credible than the guys who caught her?

They are only more credible in that the uninvolved person has nothing to gain by being dishonest.

Third party witnesses are more inclined to tell it like it was, which represents THEIR moment of glory.

Quote
Technically the law was broken, but I also drove 75mph on the freeway last night.
The speed limit is 65mph

That's par for the course. However, if you had just applied for "World's Most Disciplined Driver",

you should be denied that record, because your driving is no better than mine :-[

Action speaks louder than words.

IMO, releasing the evidence speaks volumes. This whole event gives rise to a Big Question:

"What would possess three record-hungry mongers to release the most unique bass in the world,

the bass of their fondest dreams??"

A. Retaining that bass would provide evidence that it was in fact a new world-record

B. Releasing that bass would destroy evidence that in fact it was not a new-world record

Roger

roadwarrior reply :

or...

C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

Captain Cali reply :

Quote

Quote
Technically the law was broken, but I also drove 75mph on the freeway last night.
The speed limit is 65mph

That's par for the course. However, if you had just applied for "World's Most Disciplined Driver",

you should be denied that record, because your driving is no better than mine :-[

That was good!! I'm not going to debate that!! But at least my insurance company thinks I'm a good driver. ;D

I'm with roadwarrior and pick C.

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
or...
C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

It's not a fact that it was a new WR. No certified scale to confirm that, and no measurements. A picture and a video does not prove the weight. If you bring up that the digital scale cannot be off by 3lbs. It can be off that much if it's broken, or gets stuck. And it's most definitely not a IGFA certified scale. What were they doing out on the water alone with the bass? They also could have been out on the boat removing the weights. Who knows. The bottom line is that is not certified or verified. Everybody is guessing that it is a WR that's all. It is a big fish though. Just like all of those other 20lb plus Cali bass. No proof guys. Until next time. Keep on fishing!!!

Captain Cali reply :

Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

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.

Vermonster reply :

Quote

Quote
Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

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.

roadwarrior reply :

I was NOT stating "it was in fact the new World Record," that was just an "Option C." relating to RoLo's post. I have no more information than anyone else, I have only seen the same coverage you all have. Regarding pictures and video recordings, well no one can judge an exact weight from that. No doubt it's a HUGE bass, but unless there is some specific documentation or proof as to the accuracy of the scale, the true weight will always be in question.

Regardless of whatever additional information is revealed, the fish is not being submitted for certification and evertything else is just conjecture. George Perry's record is intact, but it seems plausible that it can be broken.

KU_Bassmaster. reply :

Quote

Quote
or...
C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

It's not a fact that it was a new WR. No certified scale to confirm that, and no measurements. A picture and a video does not prove the weight. If you bring up that the digital scale cannot be off by 3lbs. It can be off that much if it's broken, or gets stuck. And it's most definitely not a IGFA certified scale. What were they doing out on the water alone with the bass? They also could have been out on the boat removing the weights. Who knows. The bottom line is that is not certified or verified. Everybody is guessing that it is a WR that's all. It is a big fish though. Just like all of those other 20lb plus Cali bass. No proof guys. Until next time. Keep on fishing!!!

Rattletrap, I find it hard to believe you accept Perry's record with no problem, but are so critical of this "could have been" one.

And about the measurements ....... I think they are worthless. Go to the Texas Share-a-Lunker website and put those fish in the weight calculator. And as far as the digital scale (the scale was brand new), couldn't they get it certified now meaning at the time they weighed the fish, the scale was certified.

Rattletrap reply :

Quote
I was NOT stating "it was in fact the new World Record," that was just an "Option C." relating to RoLo's post. I have no more information than anyone else, I have only seen the same coverage you all have. Regarding pictures and video recordings, well no one can judge an exact weight from that. No doubt it's a HUGE bass, but unless there is some specific documentation or proof as to the accuracy of the scale, the true weight will always be in question.
Regardless of whatever additional information is revealed, the fish is not being submitted for certification and evertything else is just conjecture. George Perry's record is intact, but it seems plausible that it can be broken.

my mistake..............

Rattletrap reply :

Quote

Quote

Quote
or...
C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

It's not a fact that it was a new WR. No certified scale to confirm that, and no measurements. A picture and a video does not prove the weight. If you bring up that the digital scale cannot be off by 3lbs. It can be off that much if it's broken, or gets stuck. And it's most definitely not a IGFA certified scale. What were they doing out on the water alone with the bass? They also could have been out on the boat removing the weights. Who knows. The bottom line is that is not certified or verified. Everybody is guessing that it is a WR that's all. It is a big fish though. Just like all of those other 20lb plus Cali bass. No proof guys. Until next time. Keep on fishing!!!

Rattletrap, I find it hard to believe you accept Perry's record with no problem, but are so critical of this "could have been" one.

And about the measurements ....... I think they are worthless. Go to the Texas Share-a-Lunker website and put those fish in the weight calculator. And as far as the digital scale (the scale was brand new), couldn't they get it certified now meaning at the time they weighed the fish, the scale was certified.

I have to except it because it was so long ago and under different requirements. And that's all we have as a guide. We go by the new rules so we don't have the controversies like we are having now. The IGFA requirements are in place to avoid the what if's that are happening now. That bass has not met with IGFA requirements. There is no argument.......

Rattletrap reply :

Quote

Quote

Quote
Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

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.

It does not matter. George Perry met with all reqirements of his era. The IGFA was formed and improved to avoid what's happening now. You have to stick by the IGFA requirements that are in place. That bass did not meet those requirements, and it is not recognized as a 25.1 lb or a new world record. If he had done what is required, we would have really known if he had to release the new WR because of a foul hook. Stay with the IGFA standards guys to avoid losing arguments and all other issues. They are there for that purpose. It also helps at weeding out the possible cheaters. People will do anything for that money. Keep on fishing!!!!

JayDub reply :

It doesn't matter if the scale and everything IS legit and the bass really IS the biggest in the world... it SHOULD NOT and will not be a "World Record" because no one caught it. (legally that is) We know there are bigger bass out there SOMEWHERE but if not caught legally they are not considered World Records. World Records are those fish that are "Caught" legally by a person. If a bass was caught then kept in captivity, say at a fisheries aquarium and grew to be the biggest bass, that's all it would be. It wouldn't be the "World Record" because it was not caught at 24 pounds or however big it would be.

Bassmar reply :

The three fishermen in question are seasoned record hunters. They have by their own admission spent many years fishing for the sole purpose of breaking the world record. Do you seriously believe that all 3 of them would have made so many "mistakes" in following the correct procedures. Do you not think that they know every single requirement for WR certification? Did they all loose their heads in the heat of the moment? Not likely. More likely they realised that the fish had not been legally caught and no matter what would therefore not be recognised as a WR. So they did the next best thing. Instead of unneccessarily stressing the fish and risking her dying on them while measuring etc. they released her. She was a spawner so in all likelihood will return to her nest. As they seem to have an inside line on getting on the water before others they will no doubt give it a second shot and this time ensure they hook the fish legitimatly. Lets see what transpires in the next week or so.

Pond-Pro reply :

Well one thing this proves is that largemouth bass can grow to over 22lbs. The pick of that fish was enough proof for me. I dont expect Perry's record to stand too much longer.

Master_Hunter_1977 reply :

all I have to say about that fish is that it didn't look real. I know it was but it is just so huge that it blows my mind. I have been fishing for bass for nearly my whole life and can't imagine seeing one that big in real life. ITs just AMAZING.

Scott

janalon reply :

Perry's bass would have to be accepted as the WR by anyone that is willing to accept it broken.

Like Rattletrap posted, it is our guideline, not just ours, it's your's too.

So when a fish breaks the world's record, that broken record will be 22.4, slice it or dice it anyway you like.

It sounds silly for some guys to say that the 22.4 record could be broken in california only to turn around and say that the 22.4 record is not legit.

Politics in Bass fishing?

What next?

10181

IGFA Will Consider Mac Weakley's Bass 2024

related General Bass Fishing Forum topic

previous topic

next topic

most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic