# Huge Tarpon



## PHINS (May 25, 2004)

http://www.fishhound.com/content/did-three-anglers-release-largest-tarpon-ever-caught-rod-and-reel

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## poco jim (Jun 28, 2010)

That thing is HUGE!


----------



## justinn (Apr 8, 2011)

Not sure why or where these recent articles are surfacing from. I saw this photo over a year ago.


----------



## snapperlicious (Aug 11, 2009)

*Strange*



justinn said:


> Not sure why or where these recent articles are surfacing from. I saw this photo over a year ago.


That's strange because it says "released last month".


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

I saw this the other day. The photo is not the fish reported on which is causing some confusion. However, that being said the length weight calculation would yield a fish in the 350 lb range. Also the fish is disproportionately skinny for its length. My guess is there was an error in the length measurement, which makes more sense to me. You can see why the two likely don't relate on the weight graph. http://www.projecttarpon.com/research.html

My guess is she was likely 8 feet 2 inches overall length or 98 inches. That would be a 88 to 90 inch fork. Still a huge 280 pound fish. But that makes more sense to me. I'd like to see the pictures of the fish and pictures of it being measured. Doesn't sound like these are experienced tarpon guys either, which causes more doubt. They have a poor excuse for no photo. If we never see photos I will call BS. Everybody carries a camera these days. Four guys on the boat and they were ALL releasing the fish. Nope, not buying it. One could have gotten a camera.

Note the lodge and the taxidermist client got plugs and links in the article. Hummmm.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

That fish certainly looks lifeless, with no color. Looks like it maybe washed up on the beach.


----------



## poco jim (Jun 28, 2010)

If that's want the info is, it's what it is, quit calling BS and that fish looks dead. Just say Great fish and move on, you can't debate a fish that's been released. Holy Cow


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Guys. The picture is not the fish discussed in the story. The article even says that. Look at the original article and the caption under the picture. That is the world record fish from Africa. I did not call BS for no reason. The leading biologist on tarpon in the world equally doubts the story. There are reasons sited by me why I said it is doubtful it was measured correctly. Numbers don't add up from a geometric sense. And I did say still likely a huge fish and close to world record size. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. I for one don't believe everything I read and apply knowledge and experience to interpret what I read. Otherwise Bigfoot, aliens and the Lockness monster must all be real. 

And yea, I can always debate the measurements of a fish that make no sense. Especially if there is no photo and no proof of accurate measurement. 

Why would a taxidermist who should know how to measure a fish correctly then measure overall length, not fork? Why would four guys on a boat not have at least one guy grab a camera. Doesn't take four guys to land and release a tarpon at boat side. Too many questions. The biggest one is the girth does not match the length. It throws things way off. A fish that long should have been exponentially girthy. Not 48 inches. Go look at the algorithms.


----------



## Animal Chris (May 21, 2004)

Here's a big fish, 283+#, 95 inches in length with a 48 1/2 inch girth, caught in Guinea Bissau. At the time, this tied the existing, long time world record.






The video was taken by my good friend, Tom Gibson.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Okay, so you guys understand the skepticism. Here is a weight chart with dots for weighed tarpon. You'll see there is some correlation between girth and length. The red star is this reported fish. It is way outside the norm. Not that it is not possible, but it becomes increasingly unlikely as you move away from anticipated girth to length historical data. Again, my guess is this was a 280 lb class fish. That's huge and one of the largest ever caught in the western Atlantic. This in no way diminishes the accomplishment, but I doubt it was a 350 lber. That is just off the charts and would be so unlikely in the western Atlantic.

(It's like trying to tell me that there is a six foot-ten inch, 325 lb lineman in the NFL walking around with a 24 inch waist. It's possible, but I'd have to see more to believe it.)


----------

