Amazing what happens to that calculation when you add about 5 inches to the length and 9 inches to the girth.

I have always known John to be an honest man. If he says that fish is 35, then I see no reason to doubt him, nor cast aspersions on the integrity of a good guide.

Either way, however, it is one he11 of a fish!

Mike

Knew there'd be the Nay-sayers out there (LMFAO..hehehe)..was even gonna try and keep the fish quiet for awhile. Actually thought myself at 42.5 that the fish was in the upper 20's but the girth blew my mind. Wasn't until I called another guide from the river and district Bio to do the calcs for me till we actually knew the estimated weight.

Thanks ISO (Mike) Integrity is somthing very important to me; (Integrity to me; Knowing the difference between right and wrong and following one's higher self of right. To thine own self be true!)

Got no-one to answer to but myself and God when it comes to my integrity, so if yer lookin' for a flame B-Run yer looking in the wrong place...to each his own.

Sol,

That fish came from my stomping grounds that we talked about while we were on the Hoh on Saturday...I hope he's got a couple brothers and sisters waiting for me to get up there...hopefully next week, as I usually get several days in between the third week of March and the end of April.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I've never known John to be anything but completely straight up about fish and fishing, so I believe the measurements...as to the accuracy of the formula for fish of that size, I don't know if there exists at this point enough of a sample size (since the fish need to be weighed on a scale) to measure it's accuracy.

Those Sauk/Skagit fish, especially the Sauk mainstem spawners, have shoulders on them that are really out of proportion compared to most, if not all, other local systems...you can catch 35" fish that are solid eighteen pounders, especially the bucks, and when we are talking girth like that, on fish that long, every inch starts packing on serious weight, a lot more than the "one pound per inch" of 30" Snohomish origin wild steelhead.

Either way, it's a f'g pig.

Understand what you are saying John but one thing for certain, I've caught steelhead that I've weighed on 3 different scales to within 2oz... It produced a # off by a 2.5lbs with the calculating formula of Length x girth squared / 775...

As mentioned earlier it's a hell of a fish and I'm jealous that I've never landed one that size.

I like the formula for the smaller fish but it doesn't seem to hold it's own on steelhead over 41"....

Oh and John, I beleive your integrity, but remember when you said jigs outfished eggs on the Dickey... I still have the picture of the one fish you took. That was me that was camped there the day we fished downriver together...

Keith

Keith

Todd's 1st post sez he reeled it up. heh heh. I bet it was a battle royal hoping the line would not break. I would have used a whole roll of film, then a whole roll of TP. What a hawg.

I know John is absolutely a man of high integrity. I believe the measurements were exactly what he said they were. As to the formula, I don't know how accurate it is for fish that big. I do know its one hell of a lot bigger than any steelhead I ever caught. Congratulations John!

Not lookin to flame you.. I am sure your as honest as the day is lkong.. Nice fish for sure but 35 lbs... Not even close.. Maybe 22-25 lbs or so... That netted fish I would believe might be 30 lbs...

Awesome Nate!
Congrats! John.

Face it...........pictures lie.

An honest guy that was there (with measurements) is certainly more reliable than judging weight from a photo.

Stud fish. Stud fishermen.

I talked with John the the day caught it and was pumped. He's a good guy and your looking a little green but I guess thats appropiate since it's St. Paties day. Nice fish John. Now if you were 5'2" that would be a 28lbs fish

Tight lines

Kevin

Pictures are VERY unreliable indicators of a fish's true size.

Most people are so used to seeing a fish held out toward the camera that they have a warped frame of reference for judging the true size of any fish that isn't held in a pose meant to exaggerate its size.

"Minification" of a fish is more apt to be noticed on a C&R specimen because the conscientious angler tends to keep the fish in a horizontal posture, close to his/her body, and usually in or near the water.... as opposed to the vertical hangdown, completely out of the water, and held as close to the camera as the angler's shoulders will allow... all of which serve to "magnify" the fish for the viewer.

Looking through my own collection of pics, the biggest kings I have ever caught look much less impressive posed in the water than fish I have bonked that weren't even half as big. My avatar pic is a perfect example of how the camera can be very deceiving. I've gotten many compliments with guesses running anywhere from 45-60 + pounds. A lot of folks still think that's a Kenai fish. LOL. Truth is that king only weighed 33 pounds.

If the measurements were accurate, I have no problem believing that mega-steelhead is in the 30-35 range.

Hey Keith, WaaaaaaZuuuuuuup?!? Now I remember you!! A guy better back up what he sells, and at that time (been quite a few years now) I was still owner of "John's Jigs" and yes, believed whole heartidly in what I was fishing and selling. Still believe to this day that Jigs will out-fish eggs on many rivers, especially this year with all the low water. (in fact with my day off today, been sittin' here tying flies and jigs all day)

B-Run, pics dont do the fish justice & its not being held out like that Queets fish either. Maybe Todd or someone can post the other pic in here from my reports page (have no-clue when it comes to doing that)...

..and yeah, I know the pic was taken with the fish outta' the water, but I wanted a close-up quick shot for a replica mount from Blackwater Trading Co.

Funny Kevin! Yeah I am a little taller than some @ 6'3", 220lbs

Very good post fishNphysician,

To me the queets fish seems smaller, looks bigger because the guy is holding a dead fish straight out in front of him. So much so that you can hardly see the guys elbows.

I have some glory photos of released fish that don't seem as impressive because I wasn't holding them straight out in front of me, but trying to be good to the fish by leaving them in the water. You really can't tell in photos. Some guys are puny so the fish seems huge. Taller and heavier guys make some fish seem small.

Someone should make a tape measure with LARGE numbers so you can have it in the photo for true photo evidence

But then someone would question the validity of the tape measure

Ya know. the problem is that your not use to the fish being that bright and the BIG double stripe make the Idaho fish look bigger aye B??? Besides I like to catch my fish in the same year they came in


Thanks,

Kevin

John,

Saw the other pic on your site. Wish I could have been on the bank watching that battle...I'm sure it wasn't a short one, and there had to be a lot of nail-biting going on while that fish ran up and down the river.

That netted fish might be large, but that is the nastiest looking steelhead I've ever seen. If I had caught that thing I would have put it back...I've seen rotting Chum that were better looking!

Mike

The third picture of the fish is probably the best, so far as showing off the true size of the fish...it's really long, and not long-armed like the net caught fish from the Queets...but the fish is out of the water, and I didn't want to start a flame-fest...

But if Johnny wants it posted, I'll post it...as I said, it's the best of the bunch to see the size of the fish.

It's on its way...

Fish on...

Todd

Here it is...remember, this fish is not being long armed...Dave's damn near hugging it!



Let the flames burn on...

Fish on...

Todd

I was wonderin' before, but not now. It's at least 30 in my opinion.

Todd:

Is that Dave from the Rockport store?