# 9 pounds??? I call BS



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/newsflash/ ... tiger.html

Nice fish, no doubt, but NINE pounds??? No way. 5 or 6 tops. Classic example of a fisherman's exaggeration. He's holding that thing out in front of him farther than Nortah does! :lol: :wink:


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

It does look smaller than 9 pounds, but then again it was weighed on a postal scale, and there would have been at least one wittness....I'd have to say it is a 9 pound fish, plain and simple.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Nice fish. 

It's always hard to tell from pictures.. Looks pretty thick and girthy to me.

That had to be way fun on a fly rod. 8)


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

Oh no it's BFT all over again! :twisted: 

I wish I could catch a fish the big.......


----------



## Wilford (Mar 31, 2009)

I think it could be nine pounds. The fisherman is holding the fish on an angle that does not make the fish show up well. I vote for nine.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

i think its nine pounds. look how spread out his hands would have to be if they were on each end...probably 27+ inches and it looks like it has alot of girth.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Without a doubt how one holds a fish for the photo op can add and/or take away from the true size of any fish. Seeing this fish was weighed on a certified scale I'd say it was 9lbs. And OBTW a VERY NICE CATCH for the gent!! :wink: :wink:


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

It's heavier than it looks because of all the mercury in it. :wink:


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Any fish can weigh 9 pounds if you shove egg sinkers up its a**. :wink: 

I am sure it is 9, congrats to him! :mrgreen:


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Be honest... If most people lost that fish, it would have weighed about 15lbs.


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

I can see why Chaser is skeptical because from that picture it doesn't look like a 9-pounder. However, if it was weighed on a postal scale and there was a witness, then I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt. I bet if the fish in the picture was being held at a different angle to see the girth a little better then it would be a little more impressive, and we'd be less skeptical. I've noticed this in my own pictures with nice, fat trout...if you hold the fish with its underside tilted towards the camera, then the fish doesn't look quite as impressive as it really was. 

Either way, nice tiger, and congrats the the lucky guy that caught it!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't have any doubts that fish could/is/was 9 pounds...it was measured at 28.5 inches long (which it looks every bit to be) and was weighed on an official scale. What more proof do you need?


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

It is funny how the fish always look bigger in person then they do in pictures. If he took it on a certified scale and measured it good for him on that nice tiger. If it were a male I would have it on my wall.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I must under-estimate fish when I see them then. :lol: 

I agree, Pez Gallo- had he lost that fish, it would've gone 15lbs easy!

I'm not trying to say it wasn't a nice fish, because it definitely was, it just didn't look that heavy to me in the pic. 

BTW- that's the size of cutt I am looking for at the Berry to break my slot-busting skunk. When I catch him, I'll be sure to post pics and exaggerate the length/weight! 8) :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.huntfishsport.com/web.aspx?cmd=troutWeight
Using the above trout weight estimator, a 28.5 inch fish with average girth would weigh 9+ pounds. To me, that fish looks like a 28.5 inch fish....with average girth. So, I definitely feel like the weight is legit.


----------



## scartinez (Apr 22, 2008)

I think it could go 9. What I don't get is the use of barbless hooks if your going to kill the fish anyways?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

scartinez said:


> I think it could go 9. What I don't get is the use of barbless hooks if your going to kill the fish anyways?


I'd agree -- but only if he kept everything he caught. But since he uses barbless, I doubt he keeps everything he catches. Just the big ones. Good for him -- I would have kept it as well. Legit 9lb fish if you ask me.


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Everybit of 9 lbs, Good for him.


----------



## wyoguy (Mar 4, 2010)

Regardless of the wieght or lenght I would dearly love to catch one just like it on my fly rod next time I go out!


----------



## baconeater (Apr 5, 2008)

looks like a 9 pounder to me maybe chaser will be a believer when he catches 1 someday! :lol:


----------



## Packbasket (Oct 29, 2009)

Mrs. Murphy went into labor at 10 PM on a weds. night at fish camp, she had a very short labor and the baby was born at 11:59PM, with no hospital or Doctor nearby they used SAWSMAN's fishing scale and ruler to weight the baby.

He weighed 39 pounds and was 45 inches long. :mrgreen: 

postal scale is technically not IGFA certified but is a scale registered by weights and measures to be for legal trade, so it can't be off.

congrats to the ol boy!


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Packbasket said:


> Mrs. Murphy went into labor at 10 PM on a weds. night at fish camp, she had a very short labor and the baby was born at 11:59PM, *with no hospital or Doctor nearby they used SAWSMAN's fishing scale and ruler to weight the baby*.
> 
> He weighed 39 pounds and was 45 inches long. :mrgreen:


Ha, Ha! welcome back you old coot! :mrgreen: I see Simons letting you use his computer again... or did you step up and go get you one?


----------

