WOW!! That same fish gigged back in Oct. or Nov. would have been even heavier...April means back in the bay from the gulf...very handsome fish...I'm envious. These days I, too, would have tried for a record.

I wonder how much more it would've weighed if caught earlier (or later).
I wish he would've weighed the damn thing...

I talked to him again today, he is going to get the other picture to me asap. I haven't seen it yet, so we'll see how big it looks next to him.

Could you imagine a beast like this in the Star Tourney? Can you say free dargel skout?

Shawn

If that is the eye of the fish, it is either a very young flounder, or it has experienced abnormal development. That little spot could be something other than the eye, also.

I beleive the records are for rod and reel only not gigging. The records aren't just for overall size.

Guess I was wrong there is an overall

First Fish Award - for the first fish caught by an angler of any age.

State Records for Public Waters

Rod & Reel - recognition for catching the largest fish of a species from Texas public waters by any method of rod & reel fishing.
Fly Fishing - recognition for catching the largest fish of a species from Texas public waters by fly fishing methods using artificial lures.
Bow Fishing - recognition for catching the largest fish of a species from Texas public waters by bow fishing.
Unrestricted - recognition for catching the largest fish of a species from Texas public waters by any other legal method.

That's a big friggin fish! You sure he didn't gig that on the Kenai Flats in Alaska?

If the pic was of a small flounder that close to the camera, with the guy that far from it, either the man or the fish should be out of focus, slightly. They both seem to be in focus.

A friend of mine caught a flounder that he swore he couldn't put into his ice chest/seat in his CC. For reference, we put 30" reds in it. The flounder was said to be too wide to go inside the chest. I caught 4 flounder Monday. The largest weighed about 5 pounds and the rest were over 16" Good fish.

I believe that many records are caught every year that never make it to the shore, much less to the record books. Catch and release fishermen debate whether they should go for a record, thus killing the fish in the process, or release the fish and keep fishing. Many opt to keep fishing. For instance, whatif you are on a trip where you are nowhere near certified scales? Do you put the fish on ice for several days? A state record is one thing, and I realize that's what you are referring to, but especially lake records get overlooked all of the time. Everyone here has probably caught a fish that would set a new record on the lake it was caught on, if they weighted it in. For instance, my son caught a blue cat that weighted probably 50lbs or better. The current junior angler IGFA world record for blue cat on a RR was 26 pounds. Oddly enough, the same kid has a couple more IGFA junior angler records, which is testimony to the level of importance that people pay these awards. Heck, I could send a 10 year old out fishing with a couple of folks from here and break a few IGFA junior angler records on a bet. People don't pay some of these records any mind at all, like bullhead catfish, or redear sunfish, or gizzard shad for a particular lake. If you caught one, and they had no current record, you could get your name in the book. What's the point though? Unless there's money involved or some serious prestige (blue marlin IGFA line class record or something along those lines), what's the point?

Well, for the record, I didn't say it WAS a small flounder being held close to the camera. My point was that it is impossible to tell if the "eye" is big or not since the distance depth-wise from the other objects in the photo is not known, and there is nothing in the photo at the same depth as the fish to compare its (or its "eye's") size to.

True, but I don't understand why anyone would photograph a common sized flounder. You have a good point, and with the number of doctored or misleading photos floating around, we have all become skeptics.

Well, frankly, there's a large gap in between a common-sized flounder and a record flounder. It may very well be a HUGE flounder, and still not be a record.

Anyway, let it be known that I do not like diverting the topic of the thread away from that which the original poster intended, but once the topic has been diverted, it's fair game!

Well, I stand corrected...here is the listing for state records: R&R - 13# @ 28" - Sabine Lake 1976

Unlimited (gig) - 14.5# @ 34.5" Gulf 2002 (The old gig record was about 7# from the 60's)

I disagree that records are totally unimportant...especially if kids can catch a new record. What better way to keep them in the sport? If our kids don't stay in the sport, interest will disappear, politics and PETA will take over and us geezers might as well take up ping-pong. Our goal should be to get as many new folks in the sport as possible...no matter how crowded it gets...at least we will have the clout to keep it around for a while longer...IMHO

I agree with the kids and records. I'm fairly young still myself (21), and remember fishing when I was even younger and wondering if the next fish I caught would be the largest ever. It never happened, but it does for some kids...and they should be rewarded.

However, I don't agree with those who target species just to beat a record.

Kat-man, you can attest to this. Calaveras' lake record blue cat is 4.5lbs if I remember correctly. I've seen fish 10 times that size, but no one turns them in.

Still waiting on the other flounder pic. I'll post it when I get it.

Take care
Shawn

heres some other big flounder pics for comparison
picture looks legit to me when you look at the shadows on the guys shirt, it is hard to tell the size of the holes in the flounder. Love to see some more pictures of it and I relly need to verify where it came from some please give me the gps coordinates so I can compare the DNA with other flounder in the area

http://nightstalkerguideservice.com/speargallery.html

I fail to see how the shadows verify the authenticity of the photo. If anything, I felt the opposite was true. Also, the DNA wouldn't reveal anything about the size of the fish.

Rage The way that the shadow falls on his shirt from the flash over the fish is uniform and at the right angle, someone doctoring up a photo would not normally do that unless they were very experienced.As far as the DNA....... well nevermind