Speaking of Crappie....WOW

[96 CHAMP]

I seen that, it almost looks like the picture was fake. Huge for sure.

[abkeenan]

 

Yeah, reluctantly originally. Fought it for years. Planning to get finesse info up. So far mostly politics and football.

@OzarkFinesseGuy

 

SEC wannabe.

[Hammer time]

 

if he makes it to the bass pro tank, he won't be caught again.

 

I'd like to see her released and keep that gene pool in the lake spawning every year making more huge crappie.

[Hammer time]

That's the prettiest black crappie I've ever seen , and the biggest!

Holly Cow!

[dtrs5kprs]

 

SEC wannabe.

Please no. Most overrated football conference in existence.

[Ellros]

 

I thought they had to kill it to consider it for record contention, for some reason. Is that not the case? Would be kind of cool if they didn't. Maybe there's some other ways that they can ensure the same fish doesn't continue breaking records as it grows.

  Some states (NE and MO too if I recall), require the fish to be weighed on a "certified" scale.  Your weighing device on the boat doesn't count, so you usually have to take the fish somewhere.  Unless you are prepared (as this guy appeared to be), the fish is often going to die before you can reach said scale.  Some states also require a Game and Parks official to certify it as well.

Nebraska has had several "potential" record fish released because the fisherman didn't want to risk killing the fish just to get it certified.  They preferred to release it in hopes of it being caught again.

[Haris122]

Not that I'm for killing it in order for it to be a record, but somehow I don't feel like the same fish should be eligible to be a record twice, like the California examples. As a matter of fact that's why I thought they had to "take it out of future contention" once it is a record. I can definitely understand releasing it if it turns out it was shy of the record, but to basically re-use the same fish to up a record weight seems kind of like cheapening the accomplishment. In some fashion, and again, personally I'm for a catch and release alternative, I feel like if verified as a record, it should be removed out of the pool of possible future records. But then again, there's some other things about the whole record process that doesn't make sense for me, such as including private ponds along with public waters as all part of the same record. The way I see it there should be a special distinction between someplace likely to be heavily fished, and someplace where someone can basically feed the fish to a desired size, before catching it as a record. Either way though, that record fish is a beautiful one, no doubt.

[vernon]

I don't know if I'm right or wrong or even if there is a right or wrong here but it seems to me that it's tough enough to catch ANY really big fish so wouldn't it be even more difficult to catch a specific, individual really big fish a second or third time?

Hence, the degree of the challenge would be increased rather than lessened? 

Although maybe it's easier to do in those smaller Californie lakes than someplace like Table Rock?  I dunno - maybe it's one of those "secret of life" deals.

[Champ188]

They could always tag the fish so it could be identified and excluded from record contention. If that's what they wanted to do.

[Champ188]

 

Please no. Most overrated football conference in existence.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttt? Have they legalized recreational marijuana in Kansas? Coz I know you were not in your right mind when you made that comment.