# Potential World Record YF DQed



## MSViking (Oct 11, 2007)

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...fin-tuna-catch-not-eligible-for-world-record/ :notworthy:

"O'Neill said the fish was caught on the kite, on a Calstar 6460 rod, a Shimano 50W Tiagra spooled with 130-pound Spectra, some "old" 300-pound Ande leader ("We got tired of being bit off on the 200 fluro," said Okuda) and a 14/0 Eagle Claw hook. The kite rig used for most of the trip was a Double Trouble two-hook rig with caballitos as live bait. "


I give them huge props for catching the tuna, but IGFA rules are IGFA rules so I agree with the decision. Always coaching my team during tournaments of the dos and don't s!

Robert


----------



## Chris V (Oct 18, 2007)

They know how big it was and so does everyone else. It seems this new 405lb all-tackle record is already becoming just like Kurt Wisenhutter's previous record; beatable, but not within the IGFA rules.

Cray to think of how long it took to break the 400lb mark and now it has happened twice in a short period of time. If there is a 427lb, then there's certainly one nearing the 500lb mark somewhere.


----------



## Trophyhusband (Nov 30, 2011)

I have a question about potential record fish. Is the meat still good by the time it's weighed? I would think that usually you would bleed and gut the fish and then put it on ice, but if you think you have a world record you wouldn't want to do that. Do you just pack ice around it and hope the meat stays good or do you just write off the meat? I would think a 400 pound tuna would be pretty hot by the time it was landed and it would be pretty hard to cool it without gutting it and stuffing it with ice.


----------



## Mellow Yellow (Oct 27, 2007)

Did one of the long range trips out of San Diego last fall aboard the Excel. Biggest fish landed on our trip was just north of 300lbs. I watched a small school of absolute giants chase flying fish right up to the boat. They would not eat anything and were gone in minutes but they had to weigh 400lbs or more. We were right off of Puerta Vallarta and the fishery there is amazing. Those mates are so used to helping people get their fish around the anchor that he probably just grabbed the rod out of habit.


----------



## Captain Woody Woods (Oct 2, 2007)

Trophyhusband said:


> I have a question about potential record fish. Is the meat still good by the time it's weighed? I would think that usually you would bleed and gut the fish and then put it on ice, but if you think you have a world record you wouldn't want to do that. Do you just pack ice around it and hope the meat stays good or do you just write off the meat? I would think a 400 pound tuna would be pretty hot by the time it was landed and it would be pretty hard to cool it without gutting it and stuffing it with ice.


"by the time it's weighed?" most fish aren't on ice for more than a day or two before they are weighed. and if you have any doubt in your mind that a fish might be a record for that line class or species, then there is no heading, gutting, bleeding, or other similar act. no different icing a 60 pound tuna. plenty of fishbox and ice on the sportfisher that tuna was caught on. into the box it goes, ice it down, get back to fishing.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

There are alot of people that don't agree with some of the IGFA Rules and some of them are very detailed and specific. I don't care either way and see them as rules and rules are rules that everyone should abide by and trust that everyone else does abide. 

This kind of story happens alot and often. Several times there has been a line class record Cobia caught out of Destin and didn't qualify as a IGFA Line Class Record because a someone (Normally a Charter Capt. or Mate) cast and hooked the fish and handed off the rod. 

If you ever witness the amount of planning and effort that someone who is targeting a Line Class Record has to go through in order to get it all right and have the details in order to qualify for the IGFA Record, you should agree that someone out just fishing and is luckly enough to catch a large fish for the species shouldn't qualify if all the rules and details were not followed. I enjoy the pursuit of a Line Class Record and used to do it quite often and found it to add another element to the game. I haven't done it in a good while but from time to time get a wild hair. 

As for icing a potential record -- I bag the fish and come home right now. Several years ago I caught a large Wahoo on 6lb and soon as he fish hit the floor of the cockpit we were turned about and headed home. Weighed the fish on Certified Scales and missed the IGFA 6lb Line Class Record by less than 4lbs. I still contend to this day it was very likely the right fish at time of catch. If we would have iced that fish and finished the trip it would not have been anywhere close. If your serious about contending a Record fish Line Class or All Tackle, Icing it and finishing the trip will effect your chances greatly on a close to current record fish. 

Even if all the rules are followed sometimes a catch is still questionable but can get the record. Leo Cloosterman caught a 573lb Atlantic Blue Marlin on 4lb test to get the IGFA 4lb Line Class Record in 1995. The fish was hooked very close to the boat, jumped and landed in the cockpit as I understand it, but all IGFA rules were followed and none broken.




.


----------



## my3nme (Oct 9, 2007)

Great post Garbo


----------



## MSViking (Oct 11, 2007)

my3nme said:


> Great post Garbo


X2!


----------



## PELAGIC PIRATE (Oct 10, 2007)

Chris V said:


> They know how big it was and so does everyone else. It seems this new 405lb all-tackle record is already becoming just like Kurt Wisenhutter's previous record; beatable, but not within the IGFA rules.
> 
> Cray to think of how long it took to break the 400lb mark and now it has happened twice in a short period of time. If there is a 427lb, then there's certainly one nearing the 500lb mark somewhere.


 
These size fish have always been there..........................Commercials can vouch for that. 

Tackle , Techniques and experience are now catching these fish.

Many many 400 pounders have been hooked and lost in Mexico and PV in particular. 

From what i was told by a buddy out west who knows , this fish was hooked at Roca Partida island. This is the same spot i fished in 2000 aboard the Royal Star and landed my biggest ever yellowfin 240# in just under 2 hours, on 80 pound topshot and 150 spectra with a 7/0 hook and a live sardine.

This fish totally crippled me as it was caught from a anchored boat , no help straight stand up ! took me around a 90 foot boat 7 times and hung on the anchor for over 1 hour. Not to mention it was hook on the 7th day of the trip and i had 23 fish over 100 pounds aboard already.

The fish i caught from the kite rod on that same trip all came to the boat in less than 10 min and where close to 200#. The kite rods are so big with such heavy line , the tuna come in so much easier, yet some are still lost by chewing the leader off. Kite rods are usually 600 pound leader and 200 pound spectra on 130's and broom sticks. Fishing your turn on the kite can be painfully slow or just unreal tuna bomb explosions.....:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris V (Oct 18, 2007)

PP, no doubt in my mind that today's better equipped anglers are allowing these catches. No, the tuna haven't gotten bigger, but our equipment has gotten much better.

Garbo, I don't feel a fish loses nearly the weight most think from the deck to the scale. I've weighed fish on the boat with either digital scales or the boga grip and have had the fish weigh almost the exact same back on land. 

Great example was the 399.6lb (or 399.8lb) yellowfin caught years ago on a long range trip out of San Diego. On board, the fish was weighed with an IGFA certified scale and hit 399.8lbs. Over a week later, when the boat finally docked at its home port, the fish was re-weighed and pegged the scale at 399.6lbs. Thats a tiny difference for such a huge fish. Now, I realize that those crews have their routines for better preserving a catch, but......

Leo Cloosterman's 4lb record Blue didn't land in the boat, but it was hooked and then immediately backed down on until leader was in hand. You can watch the video online somewhere. Its only about 15 minutes from hookup to dead on deck.


----------



## Captain Woody Woods (Oct 2, 2007)

Chris V said:


> Garbo, I don't feel a fish loses nearly the weight most think from the deck to the scale. I've weighed fish on the boat with either digital scales or the boga grip and have had the fish weigh almost the exact same back on land.


Very, very interesting statistic and hypothesis. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you. Should that hypothesis prove true, and the results carry over from tuna to similar weight losses for other species, makes me wonder why so many of the cobia guys insist on using the nets instead of gaffs. Is there usually a matter of ounces between winning fish in these tournaments?

For what it's worth, a jug of milk weighs rougly 8 pounds. I've seen a lot of blood come out of a knife cut meant to bleed tuna upon hitting the deck, but not nearly what I would think could fill up a gallon container. You hear guys say all the time "oh we caught this tuna in the low 190s, but surely when it hit the deck, it was over 200...". I'm not so sure...


----------



## Captain Mickey O'Reilly (Dec 18, 2008)

I think that both views have merit, and for what it's worth, dehydration of the fish due to not having a quality bag or coffin to ice it down plays more of a factor overall. No way of knowing really, as none of us have the ability to weigh a big fish accurately on the boat upon catching it to compare with its dead weight back at the dock on another set of scales. I've weighed meat fish like Chris has and had similar results on the same scale back at the dock, but seen differences on weigh master run scales of up to 5 pounds! Who knows, but I will try to get up with Dr. Franks over in Mississippi to find out if he has any thoughts.


----------



## Chris V (Oct 18, 2007)

I doubt it too. A fish is not gonna lose 5-10% of its body weight even if it hasn't been taken care of as well as you or I would on deck.


----------



## Chris V (Oct 18, 2007)

Captain Mickey O'Reilly said:


> I think that both views have merit, and for what it's worth, dehydration of the fish due to not having a quality bag or coffin to ice it down plays more of a factor overall. No way of knowing really, as none of us have the ability to weigh a big fish accurately on the boat upon catching it to compare with its dead weight back at the dock on another set of scales. I've weighed meat fish like Chris has and had similar results on the same scale back at the dock, but seen differences on weigh master run scales of up to 5 pounds! Who knows, but I will try to get up with Dr. Franks over in Mississippi to find out if he has any thoughts.


5lbs I can see on a big fish, but not a 75lb tuna, a 80lb wahoo or rally anything under 100lbs or so. If you leave it in the sun all day, then sure, but if its been iced down even somewhat it will not lose that much weight.


----------



## Captain Mickey O'Reilly (Dec 18, 2008)

Chris, what I meant was a possible difference in scales, not that there was an actual loss of weight by the fish. I agree that the fish is not going to lose that much weight if it was iced properly, and mainly I meant big fish. Sorry if I wasn't clear, being in the sun too long does that to me!


----------



## Chris V (Oct 18, 2007)

Captain Mickey O'Reilly said:


> Chris, what I meant was a possible difference in scales, not that there was an actual loss of weight by the fish. I agree that the fish is not going to lose that much weight if it was iced properly, and mainly I meant big fish. Sorry if I wasn't clear, being in the sun too long does that to me!


Haha, sure, blame it on the sun....


----------



## Captain Mickey O'Reilly (Dec 18, 2008)

Nice! I would blame on my wife, but she would beat me down!


----------



## Coastal Cowboy (Feb 12, 2012)

I'd just be happy with one of those monsters. I don't care if it's a record or close. Just would like to have a picture of me slammin one of those.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

Out of curiosity, I called some guys that have a number of IGFA Line Class Records and asked them their opinions, one has 186 Records to his credit. I have several Line Class Records, but the majority of mine are Fresh Water Species and in some cases the fish was released alive after being weighed on Cert. Scales and processed for the IGFA application. The opinion varied quite a bit. Best I got out of it was somewhere between 2-3% of body wait can be lost after catch. Handling wasn't all over the place though. Bag the fish was very consistent, or if it is a smaller species and can be contained in a type of fish box, slush or watery ice is better than just ice. 

Gaff wounds can change everything. 

All agreed on there is only one way the weight is going to go and that is down. 

Unless there is good odds of landing more than one Line Class Record, which is getting harder and harder to do or I can keep the fish alive or land it without wounding it, I will keep my method, even if a catch would be well heavier than the current record, were coming home. 

I have heard a different story of Leo's Blue............



.


----------



## Sean Summers (Jan 3, 2008)

Is there some sort of system that records records for normal folks that are not chasing specific line class IGFA rules? Like the bubbas a few years back that caught the huge mako and shot it with a .410 when they got it to the boat? Clearly there is a place for the IGFA records but there is also another place for the hypothetical local family of four that luckily hooks a 60lb black sea bass and they all take turns on the rod because it kicks their butts. They still caught a record fish just not according to the IGFA rules.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

Sean Summers said:


> Is there some sort of system that records records for normal folks that are not chasing specific line class IGFA rules? Like the bubbas a few years back that caught the huge mako and shot it with a .410 when they got it to the boat? Clearly there is a place for the IGFA records but there is also another place for the hypothetical local family of four that luckily hooks a 60lb black sea bass and they all take turns on the rod because it kicks their butts. They still caught a record fish just not according to the IGFA rules.


 
*That is what I was talking about in my first post on this thread. It is harder to do by the rules than not by the rules. Just the fact you have to know the rules is harder than not knowing the rules and just fishing. There is a gauge that All Tackle and Line Class Records are held against in order to show they were all caught in a sporting and ethical manner and they is why IGFA has the rules we are talking about. The IGFA rules are there to be a fair and balanced system for both the angler and the species of fish. Like in your post about shooting the fish with a .410, well would it be fair to consider that "catch" against a catch caught by the rules? *

*So I ask you a question as a answer. *

*Would it be fair to all the anglers that go to the extra time, effort, planning and knowing the rules in order to make sure and do it right, if a fish caught like mentioned above was just as good? *


----------



## Trophyhusband (Nov 30, 2011)

Captain Woody Woods said:


> "by the time it's weighed?" most fish aren't on ice for more than a day or two before they are weighed. and if you have any doubt in your mind that a fish might be a record for that line class or species, then there is no heading, gutting, bleeding, or other similar act. no different icing a 60 pound tuna. plenty of fishbox and ice on the sportfisher that tuna was caught on. into the box it goes, ice it down, get back to fishing.


I didn't know what went on when a potential record fish was caught. I guess most boats that have the potential to catch a 400 pound fish has the ability to bag and Ice such a fish. If I caught one in my boat I would either have to let it go or butcher it on the spot to get it iced down. I didn't know if a fish that big would take too long to cool down without gutting. Even in a salt and ice slurry it would take quite a while to get the meat in the deepest part of the fish to drop in temperature, but from reading this thread it sounds like that isn't an issue. I see a fish that big and I immediately envision my freezer along with several friends' freezers full of tuna steaks. I've noticed that here a lot of people don't bleed their fish, but I do whenever possible. Does the meat quality of a YFT suffer from not bleeding it?


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Gaff wounds can change everything.


> Hence the popularity of huge re-enforced (and expensive) nets on tournament cobia boats.
> We don't use one, but anyone who's ever lost a 40+ lb cobia because they gaffed the fish in the wrong place will tell you....


----------



## chicon monster (Mar 7, 2012)

What would you do if you caught a possible record fish over slot.


----------



## Sean Summers (Jan 3, 2008)

Garbo said:


> *Would it be fair to all the anglers that go to the extra time, effort, planning and knowing the rules in order to make sure and do it right, if a fish caught like mentioned above was just as good? *


I am not trying to speak poorly of those who go the extra mile and land a fish according to IGFA rules. However, an 1100lb mako is still a record even if it is not taken according to those rules. Or a much better example would be a large fish taken ethically and legally by a recreational fisherman who did not know and follow IGFA rules. Perhaps IGFA is just a more elite standard of keeping those records. Maybe the state records have less stringent requirements but it seems that the size of the fish should be recorded even if the technique used to capture included more than one person taking a turn on the rod.

Kind of like saying if you arent in the hunting club using bullets you loaded yourself then the giant elk you shot does not count.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

Sean Summers said:


> I am not trying to speak poorly of those who go the extra mile and land a fish according to IGFA rules. However, an 1100lb mako is still a record even if it is not taken according to those rules. Or a much better example would be a large fish taken ethically and legally by a recreational fisherman who did not know and follow IGFA rules. Perhaps IGFA is just a more elite standard of keeping those records. Maybe the state records have less stringent requirements but it seems that the size of the fish should be recorded even if the technique used to capture included more than one person taking a turn on the rod.
> 
> Kind of like saying if you arent in the hunting club using bullets you loaded yourself then the giant elk you shot does not count.


 
*While your point is a very good one, the Mission of the IGFA is to keep records based on the Sport of Fishing, not the size of Fish. The Records you are speaking of are noteable and should be recorded by other oganizations such as Genius Book of Records. To state that any catch should be compatiable with IGFA is like saying that a Football Team that won 100 consecutive games, but played 22 players on the feild instead of 11 but played against 11 player teams, holds a record for consecutive wins. The purpose of the IGFA a good purpose and I don't see the organization as Elite in nature at all, most of the people involved with the IGFA are more of a servent to the sport of fishing.*

*I am sorry but I don't understand your Hunting/Bullet/Elk comparison at all......*





.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

chicon monster said:


> What would you do if you caught a possible record fish over slot.


*It has happened before with Redfish in Florida. *

*The Catch is made and the fish is weighed on land or a land based structure, witnessed and released. *

*Many record have been set and the same method used and the record fish then released to live on, by the angler. *



.


----------



## Mellow Yellow (Oct 27, 2007)

Trophyhusband said:


> I didn't know what went on when a potential record fish was caught. I guess most boats that have the potential to catch a 400 pound fish has the ability to bag and Ice such a fish. If I caught one in my boat I would either have to let it go or butcher it on the spot to get it iced down. I didn't know if a fish that big would take too long to cool down without gutting. Even in a salt and ice slurry it would take quite a while to get the meat in the deepest part of the fish to drop in temperature, but from reading this thread it sounds like that isn't an issue. I see a fish that big and I immediately envision my freezer along with several friends' freezers full of tuna steaks. I've noticed that here a lot of people don't bleed their fish, but I do whenever possible. Does the meat quality of a YFT suffer from not bleeding it?


Most of the long range boats that fish out of San Diego have refrigerated sea water (RSW) tanks. They chill salt water down to 32 F or so and have huge capacity. The YFT and Yellowtail I caught on my trip sat in the RSW anywhere from 5-8 days and it was as fresh as could be. Those boats take fish prep very seriously. Usually when they come over the rail they get the bat, then they are weighed on a certified digital scale, brain spiked, gilled, anus gets cut out, guts pulled though the throat, then immediately into the RSW.


----------



## Sean Summers (Jan 3, 2008)

Garbo said:


> *While your point is a very good one, the Mission of the IGFA is to keep records based on the Sport of Fishing, not the size of Fish. The Records you are speaking of are noteable and should be recorded by other oganizations such as Genius Book of Records. To state that any catch should be compatiable with IGFA is like saying that a Football Team that won 100 consecutive games, but played 22 players on the feild instead of 11 but played against 11 player teams, holds a record for consecutive wins. The purpose of the IGFA a good purpose and I don't see the organization as Elite in nature at all, most of the people involved with the IGFA are more of a servent to the sport of fishing.*
> 
> *I am sorry but I don't understand your Hunting/Bullet/Elk comparison at all......*
> 
> ...


To be clear I enjoy the discussion and am not just stirring the pot. I agree that perhaps Guiness or state records or some other record keeping group is maybe a better place for those casual record catches. Really my point about IGFA is that that unless you know the rules and are specifically targeting an IGFA record you will more than likely be DQed. So it is not protecting the common angler and the species as much as it is protecting its own rules and members who abide by them. And there is a place for that. However, a person who goes on a typical fishing trip and catches a record fish in a typical legal ethical manner will more than likely be DQed by IGFA rules. So maybe I have answered my own point in that IGFA records are for IGFA members.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

Sean Summers said:


> To be clear I enjoy the discussion and am not just stirring the pot. I agree that perhaps Guiness or state records or some other record keeping group is maybe a better place for those casual record catches. Really my point about IGFA is that that unless you know the rules and are specifically targeting an IGFA record you will more than likely be DQed. So it is not protecting the common angler and the species as much as it is protecting its own rules and members who abide by them. And there is a place for that. However, a person who goes on a typical fishing trip and catches a record fish in a typical legal ethical manner will more than likely be DQed by IGFA rules. So maybe I have answered my own point in that IGFA records are for IGFA members.


 
*Just as many IGFA Line Class Records are held my non IGFA Members as there are IGFA Line Class Records held by IGFA Members. The IGFA is not a members only organization at all, IGFA exist for the sport of fishing. There is less cost in processing a record application for members as a benefit of being a member, but anyone can submit a record application. *

*If you get some time, go to the IFGA website and explore it. It is a Great organization and they do alot for people that like to fish. *

*I guess the major part of this discussion that is being overlooked is that to keep records of fish caught in the catagories of Line Classes and All Tackle Records there has to be a Standard that is there to be fair to the Fishermen and the Record Fish. The Standard has to be there in order for there to be honesty in the record system and the IGFA provides that Standard. The IGFA Standard is not unreasonable and does insure that your record would not be broken by someone using a gillnet, someone using fishing line that test outside the lineclass or by someone that didn't catch the fish on their own. *

*The expense of becoming an IGFA Member is very low and the benefit is very large. Any angler that is serious about the sport of fishing should be an IGFA Member. *




*.*


----------



## Sean Summers (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll check it out. Nice to have a discussion on a forum that did not get nasty. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Captain Woody Woods (Oct 2, 2007)

Sean Summers said:


> I'll check it out. Nice to have a discussion on a forum that did not get nasty. Thanks for the info.


I agree. Who cares. At the end of the day, a 400 pound yellowfin is quite an elite club to belong to. It's not like 3 guys took turns in the chair or anything. Congrats to the crew regardless.


----------



## Crab Man (Oct 21, 2011)

The IGFA is stupid, nuff said.


----------



## PELAGIC PIRATE (Oct 10, 2007)

Captain Woody Woods said:


> Very, very interesting statistic and hypothesis. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you. Should that hypothesis prove true, and the results carry over from tuna to similar weight losses for other species, makes me wonder why so many of the cobia guys insist on using the nets instead of gaffs. Is there usually a matter of ounces between winning fish in these tournaments?
> 
> For what it's worth, a jug of milk weighs rougly 8 pounds. I've seen a lot of blood come out of a knife cut meant to bleed tuna upon hitting the deck, but not nearly what I would think could fill up a gallon container. You hear guys say all the time "oh we caught this tuna in the low 190s, but surely when it hit the deck, it was over 200...". I'm not so sure...


 
Guy's if you haven’t been long range then you may not know that the fish are kept below deck in giant Brine freezers, as well as new technology call fresh saltwater tanks which keep the fish at sushi quality. These tanks keep the fish frozen solid in a tank, but surrounded by super salty water so the whole tank doesn’t turn into one huge ice block.

When the boat gets back to the docks in San Diego, they open the fish holds and dump the fish on the dock, by number (each guy gets a tag with his own number that is stapled to the fish in several places) this way they know whose fish is whose. When the bite is one the deck box is filled and then dumped below. Fish rarely sit on deck for more than 20 minutes unless the bite is off the hook and they are too busy. 

So these fish are flash frozen and retain their weight much different than a boat in the Gulf that catches a huge fish and bags it on deck in 100 degree heat till they get back to weight the fish. During this type of scenario, the fish looses some water weight due to dehydration, but no more than 3-7 % of body weight from what i gather, unless it’s just dry on deck with no shade and no ice.


----------



## PELAGIC PIRATE (Oct 10, 2007)

Captain Woody Woods said:


> I agree. Who cares. At the end of the day, a 400 pound yellowfin is quite an elite club to belong to. It's not like 3 guys took turns in the chair or anything. Congrats to the crew regardless.


 
NAIL ON HEAD ................:thumbup:


----------

