The IL state record smallie weight of 6lbs 7oz has been broken with an 8lb 9oz bronzeback caught on Lake Michigan in downtown Chicago. The dnr has not released info to the public yet.
I know a taxidermist who knows a taxidermist who was asked to do a replica mount and has been in contact with the IL dnr. Stay tuned......
It's about time that record was moved up for a Great Lakes smallie.
Boy that's a big fish, I never caught too many smallies in my life, but that species intrigues me.
I'd think there are not many molds of an 8 pound 9 ounce smallmouth to make a replica mount from.
I hope we get to hear the story and more importantly, see a couple of good pictures of The Beast.
A-Jay
Man I can't wait to catch on that big!
8+ lb Smallie. Speechless. Wow!
Seems there is some conflicting information if it has been certified yet. My taxidermist buddy got a pic today but has promised not to share it just yet. Supposedly 23" long with a 22" girth.
.On 7/15/2014 at 8:52 AM, slonezp said:Seems there is some conflicting information if it has been certified yet. My taxidermist buddy got a pic today but has promised not to share it just yet. Supposedly 23" long with a 22" girth.
23x22 could easily weigh 8.5 to 9.5 lbs
Wow! A real football-almost a soccer ball!!
Here's the story http://www.suntimes.com/sports/outdoors/28684551-452/heres-a-fish-story-for-you.html#.U8aF_bGa9T8
Doesn't look 8-9 to me
On 7/17/2014 at 7:45 AM, slonezp said:Doesn't look 8-9 to me
Not to me either - shame really.
It's certainly a nice smallie but the photo doesn't replicate a 8 1/2 plus pound fish . . . . . .
Additionally, the story, the way the girth was "measured", the discarding of the fish, it just makes me shake my head while making the "I think I just stepped in something" face.
A-Jay
my reaction to that story.
I agree...the picture or the way he's holding it certainly doesn't help his claim, unless he's a shaved up Squatch.
Must have swollen knuckes..
Oh well. That photo doesn't show 22" girth. The biggest girth I have measured was 17.5" for a smallie.
A bigger pic
I pulled that pic off the taxidermy site. Is it me or does the fish and hands look photoshopped?
One reason the fish doesn't look as big is because he isn't pushing it at the camera to make it look big. Does not look Photoshopped to me.
On 7/17/2014 at 10:03 AM, Scott F said:One reason the fish doesn't look as big is because he isn't pushing it at the camera to make it look big. Does not look Photoshopped to me.
My taxidermist buddy just got back to me. He does not believe it's photoshopped either.
On 7/17/2014 at 9:36 AM, Dwight Hottle said:Oh well. That photo doesn't show 22" girth. The biggest girth I have measured was 17.5" for a smallie.
I can't help but agree.
Roger
The fish in Dwight's avatar looks bigger than the pic. No way is the length and girth almost equal as far as I can see. Still a heck of a nice fish.
To me the photo cannot be any more or any less conclusive than the 'facts' set out in the claimants and witnesses stories.
Photos can be deceiving without being photo shopped to be sure.
In any event, it does not appear it will or should meet the technical qualifications for entry into the state record book.
Do I believe the fisherman's story? I suppose I do at this point.
Why would anyone immediately infer he was a liar under these circumstances if they had no evidence that he was lying?
I suppose a cynic or one who was jealous might do so.
Dude could be 6'5 with 73 inch wing span not everyone can be as photogenic as Dwight lol
It looks photo shopped to me. The camo patterns are different. On his right arm, left in the photo, is the most popular mossy oak pattern. On his left forearm, right in the photo, it is one of mossy oaks first patterns. Mossy oak tree bark. Two completely different patterns.
The DNR did not give the state record to this fish.
On 7/19/2014 at 11:47 AM, Scott F said:The DNR did not give the state record to this fish.
From the information in the story it certainly should not have given it as it did not apparently comply with the certification requirements.
Why all the hate, yes it's a shame he didn't follow through like he should have. That's a big guy, and yes if you don't hold the fish with the right angles it is hard to really see an acurate picture. He probably won't get the record due to mishandling of the fish but it is still a nice SM and a sign that record fish live in the city limits.
The fish has a curve in it if you look close, he didn't get it straight and whoever took the pic didn't do a very good job.
it doesn't matter which angle you hold that fish, there is no way it has a 22" girth. It is a big fish no doubt, but not anywhere near 22" girth, I think it might still barely break the 6 lb 7oz record, but not near 8lb 9oz it is claimed to be
Nice fish, but not close to a record.
On 7/19/2014 at 11:48 PM, gulfcaptain said:Why all the hate, yes it's a shame he didn't follow through like he should have. That's a big guy, and yes if you don't hold the fish with the right angles it is hard to really see an acurate picture. He probably won't get the record due to mishandling of the fish but it is still a nice SM and a sign that record fish live in the city limits.
IMO anyone who thinks they have/had a potential record fish would have taken more care in seeing the fish was properly handled after it was removed from the water. The fish should have never turned to mush. How hard is it to call the DNR or run to a grocery store to get a certified weight. Why weren't more pictures taken? Maybe he was looking for his 5 minutes of fame.
A couple years ago a Chicago perch fisherman who is well know on local forums tried to pull one over on the Sun Times sports writers saying he released the new state record smallie. The pic he had looked even smaller than the one we are discussing now. He made the paper and was eventually banned from many forums because of stealing fish pics off the internet and claiming they were fish he had caught. What people will do for attention..............
On 7/23/2014 at 6:33 AM, River Rat316 said:it doesn't matter which angle you hold that fish, there is no way it has a 22" girth. It is a big fish no doubt, but not anywhere near 22" girth, I think it might still barely break the 6 lb 7oz record, but not near 8lb 9oz it is claimed to be
X2
On 7/17/2014 at 9:48 AM, slonezp said:A bigger pic
I am posting this just to add some reference. Here is a picture of a 7 pound Smallmouth I caught last year that had just over a 16" girth. His fish reportedly had 6 more inches in girth.
For more comparison, here is a Musky I caught last Fall that had a 23.5 inch girth. His fish reportedly had 1.5 inches less girth.
I will admit, it is tough to tell the actual size of a fish from a picture, however, a 22" girth is a noticeably thick fish no matter how the fish is held.
Good comparison Steve.
Just for the record Mr David L Hayes world record smallmouth went 27" long by 21 2/3" girth. That fish weighed 11lbs 15oz. So even the world record smallie did not have a 22" girth.
On 7/19/2014 at 9:07 AM, gripnrip said:It looks photo shopped to me. The camo patterns are different. On his right arm, left in the photo, is the most popular mossy oak pattern. On his left forearm, right in the photo, it is one of mossy oaks first patterns. Mossy oak tree bark. Two completely different patterns.
That camo pattern is hardwoods hd. I have the same shirt.
No way its a 7lb fish. Lucky craft man did a stellar job comparing fish to fish. Btw L.C.M beautiful skie. Smile says all in both pics
He said the fish didn't fit in his freezer... Even if it wasn't a state record, I would've made room for a fish like that!