Author Topic: PICTURE OF 24LB ,12 OZ. LAKER (Read 9293 times)

Boulderbronco · « **Reply #30 on:** Jan 19, 2009, 06:41 PM »

Where is the pic of that one? I heard about that but I thought it was 25lbs as well, not 49lbs.

BrianNH · « **Reply #31 on:** Jan 19, 2009, 08:38 PM »

Photos for comparison...

The laker netted by Fish and Game last fall

and Dana's 24lb 12oz laker

F&G estimated the length at 40" or 41" as the fish was longer than their 39" measuring board and said they could not get an accurate weight but believed it would surpass the state record of 28.5 lbs. I don't know where the 49 lb weight came from - may be just a rumor?

Boulderbronco · « **Reply #32 on:** Jan 19, 2009, 08:45 PM »

Thanks for the comparrison pics. Very similar. That netted Laker was released right?

BrianNH · « **Reply #33 on:** Jan 19, 2009, 08:49 PM »

Correct, F&G released the laker.

NH Trout Fisherman · « **Reply #34 on:** Jan 19, 2009, 09:13 PM »

Both very impressive fish.

Again, As someone already mentioned wasn't the Laker from Nubanusit measured to be over 39" ?
And the 24 lb 12 oz was measured at 37" I think?

They do look very similar...I guess the next question is was that Laker caught at Nuby?

slip_knot · « **Reply #35 on:** Jan 19, 2009, 09:22 PM »

I would really like to know why the tail looks the way it does on both those fish. Was it truly a "clip" that someone made on these fish as some type of study... or is there some other reason (ie: disease)??

james · « **Reply #36 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 12:04 AM »

I would say the bottom fish is a heavier fish than the top pic, think about it fish and games "estimated" weight and length, or this guys real weight and length.

Cub · « **Reply #37 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 05:15 AM »

Those do look like the same fish.

cSpike · « **Reply #38 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 05:43 AM »

Quote from: NH Trout Fisherman on Jan 19, 2009, 09:13 PM

Both very impressive fish.

Again, As someone already mentioned wasn't the Laker from Nubanusit measured to be over 39" ?
And the 24 lb 12 oz was measured at 37" I think?

They do look very similar...I guess the next question is was that Laker caught at Nuby?

Dana's official length was 39". He did a quick tape job and the ice and told me 37". That is where the 37" came from.

Quote

Here's what a friend of mine at F&G had to said:
To put this fish into perspective, the current state record is 28lbs. This fish was 49lbs! This one came out of Lake XXX last night by F&G biologist setting gill nets to monitor spawning lake trout– and was put back in to grow bigger. 39" Length.
This would make it the next state record.

This is where the 49lbs came from.

Spike

_FLAG_ · « **Reply #39 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 06:23 AM »

Quote from: CaptSpike on Jan 19, 2009, 06:37 PM

Just looked and your right. Almost identical except for the 24lb vs the 49 lbs.

Spike

I really don't think it weighed 49#'s.
Either way if they are different fish they both are great fish either way

Hats off to the guy who caught it on a jig rod!!!

olrustyboy · « **Reply #40 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 06:57 AM »

You know those Lake's,they all look alike.There's no way F&G's fish
could out weigh Dana's fish by 25 lbs.I would say that's the same fish.
To much similarity in fish.The clipped tail is a dead give away,but I guess
you neverknow. I wonder why that tail is clipped or what ever.

_FLAG_ · « **Reply #41 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 07:00 AM »

Quote from: olrustyboy on Jan 20, 2009, 06:57 AM

You know those Lake's,they all look alike.There's no way F&G's fish
could out weigh Dana's fish by 25 lbs.I would say that's the same fish.
To much similarity in fish.The clipped tail is a dead give away,but I guess
you neverknow. I wonder why that tail is clipped or what ever.

I know in Maine they tail clip a trapped fish so they will not recount it again.
The laker I caught this spring during the Winni derby had a tail all beat up and the Bio said it was from spawning!!

jibbs · « **Reply #42 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 08:22 AM »

drama......you were better off not posting the picture....incrediable ........maybe they look the same, because they are the same type of fish.....quite the detective work huh?.....

Fish Farmer · « **Reply #43 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 08:35 AM »

I think they are the same fish, it is hard to tell with the lighting on the dead pic, but the spotting on the gill cover looks very similar as does the tail.

Fishback · « **Reply #44 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 09:35 AM »

That fish deserves to be mounted. Stupid fish got caught TWICE!

Look at the tail........

slip_knot · « **Reply #45 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 09:43 AM »

OK... so I'm really bored... I just spent ten minutes staring at the two pictures. I came up with over 50 markings on the fish in each picture that are identical. Identical in shape, size and location. It has to be the same fish. I highly doubt that many markings would be coincidentally the same. I think F&G folks were a little excited at the time of netting and exaggerated the size of the fish they saw. There's no possible way those two pictures are of two fish even five pounds different in weight, nevermind 24 pounds different.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the harvest of this big ol' laker... Congrats to Dana! I'm just saying that there is way too much evidence to indicate these are the same fish. I'd like to be proven wrong, though. Would be nice to think there's still a "twin" swimming around.

rob-s · « **Reply #46 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 09:58 AM »

that looks like a fish i caught and threw back in 1976

JJ · « **Reply #47 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 03:01 PM »

Quote from: slip_knot on Jan 20, 2009, 09:43 AM

OK... so I'm really bored... I just spent ten minutes staring at the two pictures. I came up with over 50 markings on the fish in each picture that are identical. Identical in shape, size and location. It has to be the same fish. I highly doubt that many markings would be coincidentally the same. I think F&G folks were a little excited at the time of netting and exaggerated the size of the fish they saw. There's no possible way those two pictures are of two fish even five pounds different in weight, nevermind 24 pounds different.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the harvest of this big ol' laker... Congrats to Dana! I'm just saying that there is way too much evidence to indicate these are the same fish. I'd like to be proven wrong, though. Would be nice to think there's still a "twin" swimming around.

I agree, a lot of free time here today too. Did some photo editing to show the similarities, F&G picture has a lot of glare making comparison difficult.

Definitely a fish of a lifetime, congrats to the angler.

oak · « **Reply #48 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 03:34 PM »

Lets send the photos to CSI they can figure it out..

olrustyboy · « **Reply #49 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 03:45 PM »

Quote from: _FLAG_ on Jan 20, 2009, 07:00 AM

I know in Maine they tail clip a trapped fish so they will not recount it again.
The laker I caught this spring during the Winni derby had a tail all beat up and the Bio said it was from spawning!!

Was it the bottom part of the tail when she fans the nest? That clipping on top of fish looks
pretty extreme but I guess that there would be no doubt that fish was already counted.

taxi1 · « **Reply #50 on:** Jan 20, 2009, 07:51 PM »

Quote from: lv2huntandfish on Jan 18, 2009, 06:46 PM

I would never tell anyone where i caught it. Can you imagine everyone that would be fishing that body of water.

One of the most fun things to do around these parts is to tell everyone you caught it somewhere else and watch everyone and his brother pack that lake.

One Indiana guy took it a step farther and he still snickers about it to this day. He caught some really big bluegills up in northern Michigan at a lake called Houghton Lake. Drove back down here to Indiana (about 300 miles) and laid them out on the ice in an area that floods every fall, but is dry the rest of the year. Started pretending he was ice fishing. Soon someone drove by, stopped, and looked. Then that person came back with ice fishing gear and made a hole and started fishing. Then another guy. Soon the flooded frozen area was absolutely crowed with ice fisherman of course not catching anything. The guy got off his bucket, loaded his fish and equipment up and laughed all the way home once he got into the truck!

_FLAG_ · « **Reply #51 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 06:36 AM »

Quote from: CAPTJJ on Jan 20, 2009, 03:01 PM

I agree, a lot of free time here today too. Did some photo editing to show the similarities, F&G picture has a lot of glare making comparison difficult.

(Image removed from quote.)

Definitely a fish of a lifetime, congrats to the angler. (Image removed from quote.)

Check the black spot on it's lower jaw

_FLAG_ · « **Reply #52 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 06:39 AM »

It would be interesting to find out how far he was fishing from the trap netting spot that F&G was at? In regards to how far this fish traveled in the couple of months since it was netted??

james · « **Reply #53 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 09:25 AM »

Quote from: taxidermist1 on Jan 20, 2009, 07:51 PM

One of the most fun things to do around these parts is to tell everyone you caught it somewhere else and watch everyone and his brother pack that lake.

One Indiana guy took it a step farther and he still snickers about it to this day. He caught some really big bluegills up in northern Michigan at a lake called Houghton Lake. Drove back down here to Indiana (about 300 miles) and laid them out on the ice in an area that floods every fall, but is dry the rest of the year. Started pretending he was ice fishing. Soon someone drove by, stopped, and looked. Then that person came back with ice fishing gear and made a hole and started fishing. Then another guy. Soon the flooded frozen area was absolutely crowed with ice fisherman of course not catching anything. The guy got off his bucket, loaded his fish and equipment up and laughed all the way home once he got into the truck!

My father did this one year with bluefish, there was lots of people on bow lake trying to catch the new fresh water blue fish after that lol.

taxi1 · « **Reply #54 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 12:35 PM »

We had something similar happen here in Indiana with a state record northern. Our DNR gillnetted one that would have broken the state record one spring while collecting walleye broodstock. They brought it back temporarily and put it in a large tank. (It spit up a 20 inch rainbow).

I don't remember how much it weighed or what the length was when gillnetted, but when it was caught by an angler a year later it was really close and conjecture was it was the same fish. When caught it was 30 lbs. 2 oz. and 48 1/2 inches. I mounted it in a huge glass case for the angler and we think it was the same fish as one of the maxillary bones was bent upward slightly. The happened to the fish when it was caught in a gill net.

james · « **Reply #55 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 12:42 PM »

Thats what i dont get, fish and game gillnetting fish

i have hauled a few gill nets in my time, and the fish are frigged up to say the least.

CJiceaddict · « **Reply #56 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 01:50 PM »

Thats quite a fish! I have not looked at the photos very long but it would seem like it would be unlikely that it was the same fish- though previously living not too far from Nubi I know there are definatley fish like that in there and most cedrtainly more then 1. I suppose we will know for sure when we know where it was pulled from (if we get told the correct place at all, I probably wouldn't tell either

)

taxi1 · « **Reply #57 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 03:51 PM »

Quote from: james on Jan 21, 2009, 12:42 PM

Thats what i dont get, fish and game gillnetting fish i have hauled a few gill nets in my time, and the fish are frigged up to say the least.

Sometimes that's the only way to collect the fish. We need broodstock for our pond production of walleye fry. I have found if you check the nets frequently there is less mortality. If you loose a few fish and you still end up producing several million fry for stocking it's worth it.

However I think our state gets them from a producer in Wisconsin now. They are able to get them in larger size and get a better return if they are planted larger.

huntr- · « **Reply #58 on:** Jan 21, 2009, 08:32 PM »

You guys are goood. Who said that hardwater junkies are stupid.

james · « **Reply #59 on:** Jan 22, 2009, 04:02 AM »

Thats a fish of a lifetime, but there are bigger ones still swimming out there.
a few years ago me and a freind were trolling streamer flies for salmon, when the wind totaly died and the lake was like glass, and we saw two fish just under the surface sucking whatever kind of hatch was landing in front of them, and we couldnt get close enough to see there head but they had there dorsal fins and tail fins sticking out of the water, and they were a lot further apart than the fish you see in the pics.

News:

Author Topic: PICTURE OF 24LB ,12 OZ. LAKER (Read 9293 times)

JJ