CTFishTalk.com Forum Index






CTFishTalk.com Forum Index » Bass Fishing
Viewing Topic: Ct fisherman Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Hooksetwjm



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I've pulled a 7lb bass out of a local fishing spot. Candlewood does MAYBE have what it takes to produce a largemouth that big. Thing is, I've talked with a lot of fisherman and Candlewood is filled with really good fisherman day in and day out. These people know where to fish and have all the technology capable of getting a 12lb 14oz fish. It hasn't come up yet and no one has pulled a fish even close to the state record in entire existence of Candlewood. With that being said a 10 or 11 pounder is completely rare and hasn't passed by a DEP agents desk at all. Other issue is, so I've been told. That the shear size of candlewood is not an amazing spot to produce a fish that size because a bass would have to put a lot of energy into finding fish to eat. Unlike a small pond or little lake where fish can just sit and get fat, in Candlwood that's not entirely possible.
Back to top
Redneckangler



Joined: 05 May 2012
Posts: 851
Location: Meriden, CT

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hooksetwjm wrote:
Right and I totally agree. I think it's a little unfair to have a record from 1961 that will most likely never be beat because a system was outdated........


My Godmother holds an IGFA record from 1965. They since changed the rules, and thus it still stands (Goliath Grouper). Not sure it's worth getting too concerned about. I'd spend more time worrying about the dwindling access, threats to the aquatic environment, etc. It's all kind of relative anyway, as someone could manage a small pond to produce a 12 pounder to beat the record, or you could go to Florida and catch one that would be the fish of a lifetime for 99% of bass anglers, but nowhere near a record fish (17+). I don't do a ton of bass fishing, and have yet to hit the 10+ mark, which is on my bucket list (not in CT). Maybe the guy did or didn't catch a 12+. That era of fishing is so far gone it just doesn't matter.
_________________
RNA - It's in my blood.
www.redneckangler.com
Facebook @ TheRedneckangler
Weekly reports from around CT, the LIS and beyond.
Back to top
Wanna Fish



Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Posts: 662
Location: Earth I Think

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So why dilute the forum with nonsense instead of being out there trying to break the record your so concerned about?
_________________
Don't hold your farts in! They travel up your spine to your brain and thats where shitty ideas come from.
Back to top
Hooksetwjm



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Wanna fish, I believe you have the choice to click on the link and look at what people are saying. No one is forcing you to read the stuff. What is nonsense to you may not be to other people. Obviously this has sparked something in people because I heard they are currently looking into the record and it's validity. You don't have to join in on the convo.
Back to top
Wanna Fish



Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Posts: 662
Location: Earth I Think

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could but I don't. I find the nonsense hilarious that people are so infatuated with a state record from so long ago. It fascinates me that so much time and effort is being wasted typing in a forum by those the record bothers so much instead of putting that effort into beating it.

You stated that you could out fish other members any day. You must have the skill set to set a new record catch.

If you do a little research you'll see that record is coming close to being broken in Ct. I know you must already know this but it's not soft plastics, jigs or live bait that are producing the big ones. he lures are perfectly legal and you would probably never think of using one. Even on a heavy bass rod.

So now your on your way in your research. I saved you a ton of searching and told you where not to look. When you see what they're being caught on "Holy Chit" will be the first thing you say.

When you discover the info you'll notice that the background of the pictures are blurred. There's a reason for that.
_________________
Don't hold your farts in! They travel up your spine to your brain and thats where shitty ideas come from.
Back to top
Hooksetwjm



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol ok guy. Good talking with ya. Thanks for the useless information.
Back to top
Wanna Fish



Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Posts: 662
Location: Earth I Think

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your welcome!
_________________
Don't hold your farts in! They travel up your spine to your brain and thats where shitty ideas come from.
Back to top
FishingFiend



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wanna Fish..... I think your missing the point here. Yeah we should be out breaking the record instead of talking on here, sure, sure. I fish plenty hours a week so obviously I'm not going to be fishing 24/7..... I spoke with DEP and since the 70's the biggest they've seen are 9-10 pounders. That doesn't even come close to 12 pounds 14 oz. the point here is that something is fishy with the record. It may be impossible to beat the CT LMB record because the record is most likely BS.... I could spend millions of hours trying to beat it and it's not even feasible. When DEP told me that the biggest they've seen are 9-10 pounders in the past 40-50 years something is wrong. Wouldn't someone pull up an 11-12 pounder during that time??? DEP doesn't have a picture, a length, an address, a phone number.... Nothing... Just a scale print out but zero sign of the fish. Don't you think that it's a little suspicious?????? The affidavit is incomplete, someone in the 60's screwed this record up. We're not talking 7 pounders, I see those all the time. We're talking about something double the size of that to beat the record!
Back to top
Wanna Fish



Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Posts: 662
Location: Earth I Think

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand your point. But think of the pressure bass received 50 years ago. Compared to today, None. 50 years ago Bass went virtually un-molested. Allowed to grow and live 15 20 years with out ever being hooked. In todays times you have 30,000 registered boats in Connecticut pounding every lake and river almost daily. Bass that are hooked multiple times and stressed to the point that their life span has probably dropped to 5 or maybe 8 years old.

So the possibility of a 12lb plus bass in 1961 is very possible. Record keeping back then was done on paper with a pencil. Not like todays with electronics, digital cameras and the internet.

If your aware of 8 and 10lb bass being caught now, and I know they are (the pictures are on the internet from very reputable fisherman) the potential to break the record is very possible.

I say leave the record alone and work to beat it.
_________________
Don't hold your farts in! They travel up your spine to your brain and thats where shitty ideas come from.
Back to top
PECo



Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 5200
Location: Avon, CT

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I agree that this discussion is "much ado about nothing", Carl, I understand the point of it. I hate nothing more than misinformation, so a BS "record" bothers me a bit. But just a little bit. Wink
_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter!
Back to top
Wanna Fish



Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Posts: 662
Location: Earth I Think

PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will agree that record keeping has changed dramatically over the years but that's how it was done back then. I also agree that breaking the 1961 record is near next to impossible due to the growth in the fishing industry since then and the impact it has had on the growth of bass over the years.

I don't believe we should just dissolve the old record. I do agree that maybe a new standard should be developed and recorded.

I know of two places in CT that can produce 10+ pound fish but until they open reservoirs for public fishing those fish will be allowed to live out their natural lives.

UCONN Biologists and DEEP have been testing mixing these reservoir fish with our current legal fishing lake fish for 15 years and are only now releasing their results.

My issue with this whole post is that every year someone joins the forum, jumps in and proclaims to be able to out fish someone else. As far as I'm concerned Phil that just tosses out the window any credibility the individual may have earned and anything said after that is just nonsense.

It makes me question the integrity of the original poster.

If you petition DEEP to change this record and succeed someone else will come along and petition the Red Breast record be changed and start a domino affect with all species. Next it will be hunting.

I say leave the record alone and fish harder. Or start a new record system. There's a record breaking fish out there somewhere. You just have to find it.

Me personally! I have absolutely no need to see my name in a record book. I fish for fun. Not personal gratification. After all the debate about Red Breasts I may actually get excited if and when I get one.
_________________
Don't hold your farts in! They travel up your spine to your brain and thats where shitty ideas come from.
Back to top
FishingFiend



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey guys you both bring up really good points. Fishing has certainly increased over the years so it makes sense that a monster only comes up rarely. But when I read the original post, it really hit me.... I will never break the record because it's most likely sham.

I don't fish for records either but I always have that hope in the back of my mind. It's just a bit disheartening that I really don't have a chance to break it.... And to that point a lot of people buy expensive equipment and look for something that doesn't exist. It's just not fair.... But Like i said, DEP screwed this up back in the 60's and most likely they'll never change it because they don't want to admit that they made an error. Kind of sucks

PS.... I know that no one cares about Massachusetts but their record for LMB is 15.5 pounds lol, sounds like another BS record. Look around at NY, NJ, VT, the LMB records are 10-11 pound range. CT and MA both dropped the ball a while ago........
Back to top
Redneckangler



Joined: 05 May 2012
Posts: 851
Location: Meriden, CT

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No reason to think a 12 or even a 15 lb. bass wouldn't have been caught in CT or MA waters 50 years ago. Read the DEP Bass Management Assessment and you'll understand why it was more likely back then than recently. I also know from the UConn/DEEP electrofishing that their are double digit bass in CT right now (don't ask where, as that info wasn't shared). If you look at trophy bass caught around the country on an annual basis, 12 pounds isn't that unusual, so a record bass of that size here is certainly possible. In fact, 12lbs is on the smaller side for overall state records and right in the ballpark of most northern states. CT bass are hugely pressured and the DEEP reports highlight the obstacles to improving this. Even the private club ponds are fished to death and generally poorly managed for true trophy fish. Looking at the history of CT bass from a biological perspective, it's almost silly to think that some of these bodies of water wouldn't have supported such fish half a century ago, or that properly managed, couldn't produce one today.
_________________
RNA - It's in my blood.
www.redneckangler.com
Facebook @ TheRedneckangler
Weekly reports from around CT, the LIS and beyond.
Back to top
FishingFiend



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to disagree with you on that one Redneck.... Although possible (because nothing is impossible) I don't ever see anyone breaking the CT largemouth record. We have tons of pros doing tournaments in CT and they are using expensive technology to find fish...12-15 pounds is not a big deal when you go south or other parts of the country... But up north that would be very rare. Being that DEP told me that since the 70's the biggest one pulled up in CT was 9-10 pounds, I find it very unlikely that a 15 pound largemouth is anywhere in CT.... A 7-8 pounder is pretty rare, what makes you think that there's one out there double in size???? Check out the largemouth records around our state. CT and MA stick out like a sore thumb in my opinion. No pics, no length, no evidence, not real

http://www.landbigfish.com/staterecords/fishrecords.cfm?ID=6
Back to top
FishingFiend



Joined: 06 Aug 2014
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NY, NJ, RI, VT, PA and NH are all in the 10-11 pound range. How does CT and MA produce such a bigger bass? Even Maryland which is a great deal south of us doesn't have anything 12+.... Check the northern states even if it's not the east coast. All around the same range.... I'm just sayin that things don't really seem to add up for me.... Maybe I'm crazy and way off but based on our surrounding states it doesn't make sense.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CTFishTalk.com Forum Index -> Bass Fishing All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Other sites in our Network: