105 pound Rivers inlet Chinook

[Aquaholic]

I’m with you as well. I would be somewhat disappointed if someone bonked a fish like that but I wouldn’t crucify them that’s for sure. It’s in their right and who knows really, if a guy caught one and it was damaged bad in the gills then why not. Personally I’ve struggled with this issue over the years and always said I would keep one but I have changed my view on it. I think mid to high 40’s would be my limit to keep a big one, anything over that would go back in. But I know one thing I would be very cautious and probably not share it on social media if I did, especially not on here, way to many holier than thou spectators. Which is sad considering this is fishing forum and we should be encouraging all forms of legal participation.

In Rivers, your desire not to catch those monsters stands a better chance by not fishing the head though. I would also let anything over 40 (estimated) go as then you get into the food aspect of it and how it tastes and cooks.

 

[G Gordon]

Does anyone have info on a 105.6 pound chinook caught recently at Rivers Inlet. The weight was calculated from taped measurements and released. From what I have heard several people witnessed the measuring and releasing of the fish. I would guess this is a world record for sport caught chinook.

105.9 Measures 55 length 38 girth

 

[mikep]

we can agree to disagree on that one.....

 

[brutus]

Lol I do have a pic of it, but don’t have a clue how to post

 

[brutus]

Lol I do have a pic of it, but don’t have a clue how to post

And don’t have permission from the people on the pic

 

[fishin solo]

 

[agentaqua]

Strangely enough - I totally agree w walleyes and his comments above.

The only thing I would add is that for the largest Chinook - especially the females that arrive in the front end of the run - if they are still in good condition - should be considered as a release to help out the run. They can have ~7000 eggs in them. Nothing wrong w saving the small ones to eat, IMHO.

 

[brutus]

View attachment 56149

Lol ok then that’s the one

 

[walleyes]

In Rivers, your desire not to catch those monsters stands a better chance by not fishing the head though. I would also let anything over 40 (estimated) go as then you get into the food aspect of it and how it tastes and cooks.

That’s the thing, a fish that big has to be poor eating anyways and once the battle is over then that’s it. I mean that’s the whole deal isn’t it, the thrill of the battle, well for me anyways. Revive it let it go.

 

[walleyes]

And don’t have permission from the people on the pic

I believe once a photo has been shared on social media it’s public domain. But I could be wrong.

 

[Reel Gone]

The pic and speculated measurements were already posted in the Central Coast thread on this site so re posting the pic here shouldn't raise any eyebrows. What ever calculation you use this is a huge fish and we should all be thankful that they released it to begin with. I have heard too many stories of people keeping them in the 70-80 lb range and that' s BS although it is in their rights.

 

[Aces]

(length x girth x girth)/800 is a better formula. Back when I used to hang 40-50+ fish on the scale it was consistently just under the hung weight. If I am taping a fish for release I would much prefer to have a formula that is more conservative.

this one was 49 x 34,5 so somewhere in the high 60s to mid 70s.....it was released to hopefully make it back to the river. out of the water for about 15-20 seconds with buckets of water poured on it to keep it wet and the gills happy up until the moment of the photos.

I just dont see 105# on that big fish.... its north of 70 but who knows by how much. Massive fish though...

I have it in very good Intel (buddy boat) that it measured was 55x38

 

[Aces]

105.9 Measures 55 length 38 girth

Congratulations!

 

[cby]

That is just awesome and incredible, congrats you can stop fishing now. Lol. You got the beast! They are still out there.

 

[browningmirage]

For those that advocate only C+R...no matter how you get to it,there is a mortality associated. I would wager its higher than most would expect.

Theres nothing wrong with wacking a fish. If you've got a problem killing big fish, you shouldn't fish for them at all. If it's legal to bonk...dont judge, your fish could just as easily have died after release.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

I am never and don’t think I’ve ever commented on a released fishes size. But that’s not 105. Guys hand curls around ankle. Not trying to poop on em cause that’s a hog. But let’s get real. My hand could barely do that to the 62.5 I guided last year. And no. Not jealousy. Love they released it. But come on boys .... pig none the less !!!!

 

[dradons]

Say, its 90. Still absurd.

 

[dmurph]

I had heard the guys you caught the 70 something fish that craven posted a photo of had seen the supposed 105 and it made their monster look small

 

[SerengetiGuide]

I had heard the guys you caught the 70 something fish that craven posted a photo of had seen the supposed 105 and it made their monster look small

I’ll bet my left nut that’s not 105. Lolol. Again. A monster. But zero, zilch chance that’s 105. Eye test shows it

 

[fishin solo]

I had heard the guys you caught the 70 something fish that craven posted a photo of had seen the supposed 105 and it made their monster look small

Yeah the father son that caught the 72lb are pretty avid anglers..... they caught a bunch of hogs that week ranging 30+ up to 72lb. Pretty hardcore fisherman that fish plenty..... if they say that fish dwarfed their 72 then I believe them without a doubt.