Remember That Arkansas Record Bass Last Week? Poached And Dq'd!

[Stoneroller]

I will say I think it's great to see that so many records, especially old ones, are falling (or at risk of falling). And it does suck for him, and for the sport of fishing, to have something like this happen. Hopefully someone, maybe him again, will catch another record fish.

[fishinwrench]

If they don't want to "recognize" it in the books then that just shows that what is in "the books" is bogus and means nothing.

That fish should by all means be recorded as the new record.

[FishinCricket]

If they don't want to "recognize" it in the books then that just shows that what is in "the books" is bogus and means nothing.

That fish should by all means be recorded as the new record.

With a cute lil asterisk next to it... All over a $12 fishing license.. What a goof...

[dennis boatman]

give the fish the credit due him...not the fisherman...

[mic]

If they don't want to "recognize" it in the books then that just shows that what is in "the books" is bogus and means nothing.

That fish should by all means be recorded as the new record.

That's bull... The record books are clearly for "legally caught fish". Ask yourself this, how many other non-record big fish did this guy poach.

[Feathers and Fins]

The fish is the record not the angler, However there have been trophy bucks taken by illegal means that did not make the record books. The "books" are for legally harvested animals there is deferance. Think about it, Would you really want a high fenced or genetically altered deer or fish to be in the same class as a true free range animal?

Is the fish a record? Yes! Should it be in the books? NO, as those places are reserved for legal harvest fish and game and this one was not. What has bothered me most about this is the claims of the line and lure originally " by accounts " of the line and lure involved had it not been discovered or "accounted" then this guy could have been defrauding those companies potentially millions. Im not saying it was his intent at but just pointing out the potential and the reasoning behind legal fish for record books as the money involved could be alot.

[fishinwrench]

That's bull... The record books are clearly for "legally caught fish". Ask yourself this, how many other non-record big fish did this guy poach.

I always looked at state record fish as an indication of what size of fish is possible in the region.

[Stoneroller]

The fish is the record not the angler, However there have been trophy bucks taken by illegal means that did not make the record books. The "books" are for legally harvested animals there is deferance. Think about it, Would you really want a high fenced or genetically altered deer or fish to be in the same class as a true free range animal? Is the fish a record? Yes! Should it be in the books? NO, as those places are reserved for legal harvest fish and game and this one was not. What has bothered me most about this is the claims of the line and lure originally " by accounts " of the line and lure involved had it not been discovered or "accounted" then this guy could have been defrauding those companies potentially millions. Im not saying it was his intent at but just pointing out the potential and the reasoning behind legal fish for record books as the money involved could be alot.

that's odd because all I see are fish weights, where it was caught, and an angler's name. So the record is both the fish AND the angler. Bottom line, illegally pursued and taken game is forfeit. Play by the well established rules (it's not like EVERYONE doesn't know you must have a fishing license BEFORE your line goes in the water) and you can reap the rewards, otherwise you are a thief and a criminal. what's that saying people love to use? "It is what it is"?

[Mitch f]

If they don't want to "recognize" it in the books then that just shows that what is in "the books" is bogus and means nothing.

That fish should by all means be recorded as the new record.

I agree...

I went fishing the other day not remembering my license had expired the day before at the end of Feb ( I bought a new one of course) ...if I would have caught the state record smallie that day, I might have been tempted to get the license just as he has done. I think calling him a poacher is a little harsh. If he is taking more than his limit I would call him a poacher, but who really knows what he does when no one was looking. You have to assume the guy fooled the fish into biting the lure or bait in a legal manner, him not paying $13 should exclude him from the record book, not the fish.

[emjay]

Still have to respect the fish itself. It still was a record bass.