New State Records!

Discussion in 'All Catfishing' started by whiteriver, Sep 10, 2009.

Do you feel that the States need to establish a "Modern" record system.

  1. YES___We need to establish "Modern" records that reflect the current fish in out state!

  2. No----The current record system is working and fine with me.

  3. Yes____If the old record holders are kept in a proper place

  4. Maybe____It depends on how the new records would be established

  5. NO----I am against anything new!

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. whiteriver

    whiteriver New Member

    Messages:
    617
    State:
    in
    I am looking to find out how fellow BOC members feel about establishing new state fish records, in all states, under a "MODERN" category.
     
  2. JEFFRODAMIS

    JEFFRODAMIS New Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    State:
    TEXAS
    Great topic, lets see how this goes..


    i thinka s long as the older record holders are kept in consideration, a more "up to date" record system is in order
     

  3. Mickey

    Mickey New Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    14,592
    State:
    Illinois
    I voted yes to establish modern records for all states. Reps for a great topic. You should get a lot of ideas on this .
     
  4. Catfish_Commando

    Catfish_Commando TF Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,005
    State:
    Georgia
    I have always thought that State Record fish should only be counted if they are caught from public water(s).

    I see states position on getting the weight bumped up to draw in possible tourism dollars, although I dont agree with it.

    A fish caught from property that has "limited" access really is not a record in the truest spirit of sportsmanship in my opinion.
     
  5. arkrivercatman

    arkrivercatman New Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    State:
    KS
    I think the records should only come from PUBLIC access fishing locations.
    Places that ANYONE can go to and fish.
    Lots of records here in KS were caught at a farm pond. Thats no fair.:confused2::smile2::smile2:
    Wouldnt be opposed to having separate categories for R&R and other methods.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2009
  6. bnewsom71

    bnewsom71 New Member

    Messages:
    537
    State:
    Mathervill
    I second that Paul.
     
  7. whiteriver

    whiteriver New Member

    Messages:
    617
    State:
    in
    I agree with that Paul. In whitetail hunting if a buck is taken from an enclosed area it is not eligible for the Boone&Crockett or Pope&Young record books.
     
  8. whiteriver

    whiteriver New Member

    Messages:
    617
    State:
    in
    I doubt that separate categories would be kept, lot of paper work. Some states (Indiana) could care less about records. They hardly care about the sportsmen at all. IMO
     
  9. SGTREDNECK

    SGTREDNECK New Member

    Messages:
    1,522
    State:
    Tennessee
    I voted no they old system works fine. But I do gotta agree that all state record fish should come from public waters. There could be another category for "other" and fish caught with alternative methods should be counted as other as well. Good post
     
  10. whiteriver

    whiteriver New Member

    Messages:
    617
    State:
    in
    Good idea Sgt. Not only fish by alternative methods but fish caught in "other" than public water.
     
  11. whiteriver

    whiteriver New Member

    Messages:
    617
    State:
    in
    I knew someone would vote #5 :smile2:
     
  12. Az Birddog

    Az Birddog New Member

    Messages:
    114
    State:
    Tucson, Az.
    I think they could go back to a said date and start with the original record. Then start with a new best record from that date forward i.e. 01/01/2000. It could be the Millennium Record or something.
    I also agree that a farmed fish is not a record.
     
  13. USCA-RECLAIMED-ACCOUNT

    USCA-RECLAIMED-ACCOUNT New Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Pa Fish and Boat Commission seems to do a pretty good job here on the records,the fact that that,s about the only thing they do good at is a whole other can of worms.Our records have to come fro public waters, I think it should be that way everywhere.:wink:.I believe very strongly that as long as it came from public water,there,s no reason for a MODERN record.Our flat record stood for like 40 years then got broken 3 times in the last couple years.If you want the record updated,go break it.:wink:
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2009
  14. catman79

    catman79 New Member

    Messages:
    164
    State:
    iowa
     
  15. Blacky

    Blacky New Member

    Messages:
    10,351
    State:
    Philadelphia, P
    Yep, in The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, only fish from public waters can count.

    No paylakes, private ponds/lake, or private clubs.
    Everyone should have a fair chance.:cool2:
     
  16. catter62

    catter62 New Member

    Messages:
    153
    State:
    texas
     
  17. RonSki

    RonSki New Member

    Messages:
    380
    State:
    Indiana
    I agree that every state should only count record fish if they came from public waters. But there's really no way of enforcing that either. I would like to see more emphasis on verifying a fish as a record WITHOUT having to kill it. There's been talk of trying to get a modern Muskie record for years since there's so many cheaters that have been thrown out. There was either a state or maybe it was Canada, can't remember who, that was SERIOUSLY looking into starting a modern record system for muskies but they decided not to go ahead because of the huge number of fish that would be killed in the process of starting over. Unfortunately, there's just not enough biologists around anymore to be able to run out somewhere in the middle of the night and verify a fish. I'd rather not see a bunch of dead fish pictures just so someone knows who has the biggest. I'm fine with knowing what a trophy is in my area and keeping my own records. I know what I caught & don't need anyone to verify it for me. If the fish is THAT big, they obviously don't make a lot of them, and if I were to kill it, it won't get any bigger.:wink:
     
  18. sjohn58

    sjohn58 Guest

    I think the records should only come from public access fishing locations.
    Not from water that the public can not access to
     
  19. whiteriver

    whiteriver New Member

    Messages:
    617
    State:
    in
    Very good point Ron!~
     
  20. Jacksmooth

    Jacksmooth Member

    Messages:
    574
    State:
    West Virginia
    I think it would be sweet if there was something in place in all states where fish weighed and verified could be released alive if the angler wanted to. I have read in some states that they can only be certified if they can kill the fish to do bioloby test on it to certify it. Then there are times where there is no one close to verify the fish.