South Dakota smallie record broken

[Mitch f]

Here's the Missouri record

 

 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

Here is what it boils down to. The time honored standard measurement of a fish has been its weight not length. 99% of bass tournaments are won and lost by the weight of a fish not the length. At the bottom or on the back of old pictures was always the weight of a fish. Rarely was the length mentioned. All fish records, whether World or State or what have you, are by weight. There are no records that I know of that are judged by length over weight. 

But now since we can't catch one of that weight, we want to change the standard of measurement. We want to move it from the weight of the fish, which is now apparently minuscule and hardly worth mentioning, to the length of the fish. Because we can catch long fish we just can't catch fat fish. So let's change the standard. 

 

And it all circles back to, can the Ozark streams produce the world class fish that you all salivate over? If not, simply change the standard of measurement.

[jtram]

You have 2, 18" fish. ONE is 2.47 lbs, TWO is 3.9 lbs. 

Which one is bigger?

[jpb2187]

I'm just saying that people catch longer fish than the one caught, so the potential exists that if a longer fish would eat/get as fat as the one in the picture then we could have a monster lurking in some MO lake. 

No ones denying the fish is big, no ones crapping on his catch. Just hoping for a monster in our lakes. 

As for the length/weight question... no one is denying that a fish that weighs more is bigger, but weight is typically determined by two components - length and girth. In almost every fish weight formula I have seen, length is given a greater significance in the calculation... so using formulas that have been around for a long time as well would put emphasis on length when searching for a big bass. 

But so goes the internet, where you have losers trying to pick out an argument in anything they can.

[MOPanfisher]

While length and weight are both time honored descriptions of "trophy" fish, I personally think we as anglers put way too much emphasis on the size of our fish.  maybe its because I am not that good of a fisherman but I seldom have "trophy" fish, I catch some nice ones, but mostly I have trophy trips or trophy memories.  multi day floats on Crooked creek with friends catch lots of 12-15 inch smallies, gogglers etc. meant MUCH more to me than catching a couple big uns.  Not saying I wouldn't love to catch them big uns but for me the trip is about way more than the size/length of the fish.  To each his own.  I would rather have a relaxing day on the creek with smaller fish and numbers than have to approach fishing like it was a job.  I want to enjoy a beer at a campfire on a gravel bar, eat some steaks etc.  the rest is just extras.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Looks like someone didn't pay attention in science class. 

[DADAKOTA]

Some of ya sound just like deer hunters.  A guy whacks a big one and folks start tearing it down, speculating on this or that, etc.  Jealousy?  That smallie is an absolute toad.  Give the feller his due.

[Johnsfolly]

Don't even get started about developing and releasing triploid smallmouth bass just to have them pack on weight .

Anyone read the Outdoor life article about the guys trying to produce the next world record largemouth in Texas? It's headed up by one of the guys that developed the Tecomate deer feed programs. Trying to use the same thought process of high quality genetics, high fat/protein diets, and age in a ultra-managed lake system. 

[Smalliebigs]

2 hours ago, MOPanfisher said:

While length and weight are both time honored descriptions of "trophy" fish, I personally think we as anglers put way too much emphasis on the size of our fish.  maybe its because I am not that good of a fisherman but I seldom have "trophy" fish, I catch some nice ones, but mostly I have trophy trips or trophy memories.  multi day floats on Crooked creek with friends catch lots of 12-15 inch smallies, gogglers etc. meant MUCH more to me than catching a couple big uns.  Not saying I wouldn't love to catch them big uns but for me the trip is about way more than the size/length of the fish.  To each his own.  I would rather have a relaxing day on the creek with smaller fish and numbers than have to approach fishing like it was a job.  I want to enjoy a beer at a campfire on a gravel bar, eat some steaks etc.  the rest is just extras.

Whoever said fishing a creek was a job is into the wrong hobby.....nobody here has ever said that chasing and wanting bigger fish was a job???

 

[Smalliebigs]

3 hours ago, jtram said:

You have 2, 18" fish. ONE is 2.47 lbs, TWO is 3.9 lbs. 

Which one is bigger?

Who cares???......I want more 18+ fish