Controversy And Reality

Nelson’s fish was 2 pounds 5 ounces lighter than the phony world record. That’s a quantum leap to the top-end weight a popular fish species can achieve. When individual fish begin to approach that top-end weight, every additional ounce represents a geometric progression. Consider the next four largest walleyes ever recorded. The difference between number two and number five is 2 pounds 6 ounces—almost the same as the leap from number two to the phantom record.

To place it in perspective, compare it to other freshwater records for extremely popular fish. The difference between the top two largemouths is about 4 ounces. The biggest two northern pike taken in North America are 6 ounces apart.

Yet, some records do make dramatic jumps. A 40-pound brown trout taken from the Little Red River in Arkansas several years ago tops the next biggest brown on record by 1 pound 7 ounces. Browns, however, were introduced fairly recently to those Arkansas rivers—just long enough to achieve such monstrous dimensions. A bigger brown may yet be caught there, or in Lake Michigan where the new Seeforellen strain is reaching weights approaching 25 pounds in four years. No such hope existed for walleye anglers chasing an impossibly bogus standard.

But what about king salmon? The largest fish on record, according to the International Game Fish Association, is a 126-pounder taken in a commercial net. The all-tackle world record, meanwhile, is 97 pounds 4 ounces. The discrepancy there is over 28 pounds, yet the question is, can anybody actually land a king over 100 pounds in the confines of a raging river in fall, where kings tend to be right after achieving maximum weight? It’s possible that many fish over 100 pounds have been hooked. Landing them is another matter, which is less true with walleyes, even if they could top 25 pounds.

Such reasoning leads to the next logical step. Have giant walleyes that approach or top the new world record been caught or found through methods other than angling? Legends and myths abound, the most notable rising from Greers Ferry and the Columbia River. On the banks of Greer’s Ferry, also in Arkansas, biologists and anglers claim to have found skeletons of walleyes over 40 inches long. Those fish could have weighed well over 20 pounds, but 25? The fact that the new world record walleye, Nelson’s 22-pound 11-ouncer, was taken from Greers lends credence to such tales, but hardly serves as verification.

Rumor has it that a walleye over 25 pounds found its way into a native American’s net along the banks of the Columbia. Guides say a wildlife officer witnessed the fish. But, according to Paul Wagner, fisheries biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, it ain’t so, Joe. “I hear that story every year, but I don’t think anyone in our office has ever seen anything surpassing the Oregon or Washington state records, let alone a fish of world-record proportion.”

Which leads us back to where we started. Does the potential exist for walleyes to weigh 25 pounds? The world record received serious scrutiny over the past few years, and the consensus among most experts proved true. Harper’s fish simply couldn’t have weighed 25 pounds. Analyzed repeatedly, some say the photo is legitimate, yet reported girth (29 inches) and length (41 inches) statistics don’t jive. According to Steve Quinn, staff fisheries biologist at In-Fisherman, “A 29-inch girth isn’t physically possible for a walleye 41 inches long. Using a time-tested formula (girth2 x length ÷ 800), those measurements describe a fish weighing close to 40 pounds.”

An Arkansas fisheries biologist, who wishes to remain nameless, said, “I really doubt that a walleye could weigh 25 pounds in August. Maybe in February, but not in August.” This from a man who over the years handled numbers of fish over 20 pounds during his agency’s quest for eggs and milt.