He told me there was a picture of somebody with what they said was sa 37" walleye out of Mille Lacs in the Outdoor News in the last month or two. And it was only like 8 pounds or something. That strikes me as COMPLETELY insane and 100% fiction, but I wanted to know if anybody else saw the picture he was talking about.
At 12# that puts it at a 15" girth. And that would be one long and sickly looking fish.
I'd like to see that pic. I might have to try and dig it up from a friend that gets that paper. Disregarding the measurements if the weight is accurate it sure sounds like someone got into a pretty special fish for mille lacs. A 12# from the pond is a RARE happening.
-------------------- James Holst - In-Depth Outdoors TV Host IDA Guides Guide Service
Ph. 507-271-0362
37" walleye? Here in Illinois we call them Pike! A 27" wally this time of year probably doesn't go 12# either, maybe in late fall or spring after its all egged up. I've verified a few fish in Pool 14 over 12 lbs that were 28-29 inches and you'd swear they ate a football.
Maybe a misprint...maybe someone full ! IF you keep an eye on that publication or any other type of outdoor paper...lots of Bull #^%* weights and lengths. Anywhere you get someone listing, posting fish sizes, your going to get BS...We even see it here from time to time.
BIRDDOG
-------------------- FOR BETTER OR WORSE, FISHING AND HUNTING COME FIRST
Joe Feelegy talks about it in this weeks edition. He lists examples of fish and weights. I think he is leaving it up to everyone to draw their own conclusion. I think I know what his is
Here's the best I could do to come up with some realistic numbers. First, I printed the picture out. Second, I took various measurements across the width of the walleye to find centerline points in order to measure the length of the fish down it's centerline. Keep in mind the tail goes off the end of the picture, so what I did was drew a line from just off the end of the tail on the bottom side long enough to cross the centerline of the fish. This line was drawn perpendicular to the bottom edge of the tail assuming that if the tail was squeezed together, the top edge and bottom edge of the tail would run nearly parallel to each other thus giving the "squeezed tail" effect. I also left a tiny bit of sluff room when I drew the line off the end of the tail in order to compute a more conservative measurement.
And so, I measured the centerline length of the fish using an engineer's scale and came up with 38 units. I then measured the width of the gal's fingers across the centerline of the fish and came up with 3.6 units. I then measured the width of my own 4 fingers at the same location in which the centerline of the fish crosses the gal's fingers and came up with 3.0-inches. Calculating through.....38/3.6x3.0 I get a total approximate length of 31.67-inches. Now in many cases, a woman of her size is likely going to have fingers smaller than a man's. So if hers measure 2.9-inches across, then the fish is 30.6-inches and for every 0.1-inch her fingers are less than mine, the walleye would be about 1.05-inches shorter.
I have no clue of the width of her fingers, but even if they equaled the width of my own (located just above the middle knuckles), the fish would still be well under 37". In fact, the width of her 4 fingers would have to be 3.5-inches across in order for the calculation to equal 37-inches. Those would be some big woman hands!
While I don't believe at all that this fish is near 37-inches, I do want to say congrats to the gal on a very nice fish! More than likely, that fish is in the range from 29" - 31" and at those lengths, the weight of 12lbs becomes much more feasible. Excellent fish!
-------------------- my rod and my reel....they comfort me....
Maybe they got ahold of one of those Upper Red Lake measuring tapes? I think Tuck is right, someone missed a key. If that fish is 37" & 12#, I've been throwing back a few wallhangers. 27" & 8# I could believe, but it's a very nice fish & congrates to her, big-fingered Betty!
Outdoor News and other publications have taken their jabs by the IDO faithful over the years. So has IDO at the hands of some radio personalities. Be that as it may, one thing we as a group need to do is try to stay away from the personal attacks on individuals which I would like to think we all agree on.
That being said, Joe Fellegy has weighed in with clarification on this 37" walleye debate. Thank you Joe for taking the time and submitting this to IDO:
Joe Fellegy column
Outdoor News, Aug. 15 '08
On the walleye length trail: could a 37-incher be real?
Just how long (length in inches) do Minnesota walleyes grow? Anglers have always pondered the question of how big the biggest of a species might get—in general, or in a specific lake. It’s a fascinating topic. Until the last 25 years, prior to the era of special regs and length restrictions, few Minnesota anglers measured walleyes. It was pounds and ounces, not inches and fractions thereof.
Even in today’s age of slots, minimum and maximum lengths, and rulers in every boat, most record-fish listings still include only weights. In walleye tournaments, the focus is heavy on pounds, not inches.
These days there’s talk aplenty about walleye length, thanks to a photo in last week’s Outdoor News. The caption reported the slender-looking big Mille Lacs fish hit a Reef Runner over deep water on July 4, weighed 12 pounds, and—get this!—measured 37 inches long. (That info, whatever the story, came with the photo. It wasn’t a typo.)
Using a common length-weight formula—length x length x length divided by 2,700—a normally proportioned walleye measuring 37 inches would weigh 18.76 pounds. But, as anglers well know, there are skinny fish, fat fish, spawned-out fish, sick fish, and fish that are egg-heavy or forage-filled. Thus, a 28-inch walleye, normally around 8 pounds, might weigh almost 10 pounds, or maybe only 5 or 6 pounds. Sure, a lean 37-incher—an almost unheard-of length—might weigh only 12 pounds.
Whose fishing mind even thinks about a 37-inch walleye? Suppose we drained our most walleye-rich lakes and rivers dry, exposing every last fish. How long might the longest walleyes be? Naturally, that’s anyone’s guess. I’d like to believe that out of millions of adult Minnesota walleyes a few 37-inchers would show up. Maybe.
If you’re pondering or debating the possibilities of 37-inch walleyes, consider a few big-fish stats.
• On Jan. 4, 2005, on Lake Tobin, Father Mariusz Zajac landed the world record ice-caught walleye and Saskatchewan’s provincial record. It weighed 18.30 pounds, sported a girth of 22.5 inches, and measured 36.5 inches long.
• A Washington state walleye record, pulled from the Columbia River on Feb.5, 2007 by Mike Hepper, weighed 19.3 pounds, was 33.7 inches long, and had a girth of 22.24 inches.
• Montana boasted a new walleye record, from the Tiber Reservoir in November, 2007. Bob Hart’s fish, a 17.75-pounder, measured 35 inches.
• In 2003, the Kanawha River produced a West Virginia record—17.85 pounds, 35 inches. An earlier record, from 1990 and weighing 17.22 pounds, was 33 inches long.
• Minnesota’s state walleye record, 17.5 pounds from the Sea Gull River near Lake Saganaga (May 13, 1979), has an oft-listed length of 35 inches. Several DNR personnel helped verify the fish. Tracy Close, then a fisheries biologist at French River, told me the original measurement had followed the fish’s contour. When Close laid it flat for a “proper” straight-line measurement, it was a bit over 33 inches.
As longtime director of In-Fisherman’s Professional Walleye Trail (PWT), and a well-travelled angler himself, Jim Kalkofen’s seen ultra-big walleyes. Like a 14.5-pounder at Lake Erie, where one PWT event registered six over 12 pounds. With Jim it’s been mainly tournament pounds, but he recalled a personal autumn trip on Lake Wabigoon, Ont., with 33.5- and 33-inchers (no weights or girths) caught within minutes of each other.
Creel clerk experiences:
Every fishery has a kind of unwritten big-fish outer limit—a commonhigh-end weight or length for a species, but not so rare that it draws headlines. At Mille Lacs, that top-off point might be 31.5 inches. They get longer, but 32 and up are super-special. That’s my experience. Chats with Bill Herrick (Wave Wacker tournaments), George Nitti (Nitti’s Hunters Point tourneys), and others agree.
I asked Steve Lawrence, dean of DNR Mille Lacs creel clerks, about the longest walleyes he’s encountered through thousands of hours-long stints, day and night, at resorts and public accesses. His two biggest (longest), observed and measured, came after official clerking hours. One, at Garrison around 2:30 a.m. under a September full moon around 10 years ago, weighed 14.6 pounds and measured 34.5 inches. A 34-incher was brought in by a troller from near Hennepin Island. One not seen, but officially recorded via angler interview, was a 34-incher caught on a Suick by a muskie angler. Over the years, some 32s may have been measured.
I wrote about a 13 lb. 11 oz. Mille Lacs walleye (New Years, 1992) and a 13 lb., 10 oz. walleye (October, 1996). Reported lengths for both: 31.5 inches.
Thousands of anglers come and go from Minnesota fishing waters. Ditto for huge fish, some reliably weighed, measured, and reported. Some not. Historically, many “big fish” reports—including news about all-time biggest catches—lack length data. Lists of state record fish often include only weights.
More than with reading a scale, measuring fish involves a “human factor” with room for variations. Tail pinched? Condition and posture of the fish? The ruler itself and its use?
Anyway, pondering high-end fish lengths is a fun game.
Is my dad full of crap?
Re: Is my dad full of crap?
Re: Is my dad full of crap?
! IF you keep an eye on that publication or any other type of outdoor paper...lots of Bull #^%* weights and lengths. Anywhere you get someone listing, posting fish sizes, your going to get BS...We even see it here from time to time. 
I will TOTALLY either throw the biggest BS flag I can find or 37" is a misprint. 
Seems to be a problem over there.
Re: Is my dad full of crap?
