RECORD FISH KEEPING??????? questionable tactics for sure

[lunkerbasshunter]

I have always questioned the record books as far as how they keep there records. I know that many years ago it wasnt possible to take pictures and get record fish certified. Now a days as im sure beats is going to find out with his crappy it is a long legal process to get his record fish certified.

 

I think although a pain in the butt for beats it is a good way to insure its a real record.

 

My question is there are some real issue with some of the current records. The smallmouth bass 9.84 pounds was caught where nobody witnessed it. There are no pictures of it. Nobody weighed it other then the guy who caught it and the bait shop in town claimed it as a record fish. You know how bait shops can embelish fish stories to get people to come to there town. Happens all the time even today.

 

The large mouth is the same thing. There are no official documentaiotns of it. No pictures, no legal documents. I think preston lake is actually a private lake too? How does that work lol Maybe a Bull story to raise property value?

 

The walleye is 22+++ pounds caught decades ago. Maybe it was a salmon and the angler just didnt know the difference? SOunds stupid eh? Well just as stupid as us reconizing it as a record fish that has no documantations.

 

The musky is most likely the most legit record as there was many people on the moon basin that day that saw the fish, witness the weigh in and if im not mistaking i think a mnr official was there as well.

 

The monster rainbow trout was caught a few years back and was legit with pictures, inspected scales and legal papers.

 

ANyways im not saying these older record fish dont exist im just saying how can they be sure that they did? take my word for it shouldnt exist in record keeping. No pictures, no certified paper work, i think they should be invalid.

 

Cheers!

[Greencoachdog]

No pics, no believe?