# Debate this -- 40 inch walleye



## scottyhoover (Dec 24, 2002)

ok photoshop experts.....doctored or not?








http://www.ontariofishing.net/cgi/messageboard/data/17109.shtml
I say one heck of a fish.


----------



## Gladius (Jul 19, 2004)

I say its the real thing, but I've been wrong once before! :gaga:


----------



## Hunt_n_Fish (Jul 30, 2003)

no walleye could get that long without being healthy and a healthy walleye is a fat eye. That fish is way to long and skinny.


----------



## ozzgood2001 (Feb 15, 2003)

*hard to say i read thru the thread you have linked and its real hard to say lots of good points either way. cant find a 40 inch eye anywhere else, why only one pic and such who knows my vote its a fake, but i could be wrong*


----------



## bartley (Jun 29, 2004)

i dont know. i've made some pretty small fish look pretty big by holding it close enough to the camera. that fish might only be 30 inches long. id say its real.
~chris~


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

Looks like the fish is some distance from his body, (held out to the camera)
and looks too thin to be 40" Its probably more around 27-32" still a nice fish.


----------



## MSUICEMAN (Jan 9, 2002)

i dunno man.... a post spawn male that is older than sin might get that long and skinny.... I don't doubt it can happen because there is a 39" fish recorded from MN i believe. who knows, either way its a nice fish.

steve


----------



## WALLEYEvision (Dec 5, 2003)

Yeah nice fish, but 40"...?


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Look at the width of the tail compared to the part of the hand you can see holding the fish. I'd say it's real, the guy isn't pulling a classic Al Linder, holding it out at arms length.

I've said this a thousand times, but after the mercury ban in the early 70's, with no sportfishing or commercial fishing allowed, no one looked twice at a ten pounder. I saw some huge walleye come out of LSC. 14#ers werent even uncommon.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I see something that looks out of proportion to me. Look at his right hand, cuff, and forearm.


----------



## Gone Fishing (Jul 31, 2001)

Nice Eye, but I'd bet the farm it ain't 40!


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

he's too well dressed to be a fisherman. :lol: 
not to many of us tuck our shirts in to fish.

The more I look at the photo it looks doctored. 
the fish is too skinny


----------



## STEINFISHSKI (Jan 30, 2001)

Well the pic is real, but I do not believe 40". Here's DonP holding a 34" for measure.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Gone Fishing said:


> Nice Eye, but I'd bet the farm it ain't 40!


It would be if I was holding it.  

Maybe it's so skinny because they pulled on both ends real hard...........


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

[/IMG] 

These were 30" and 31"
I tried to hold a tape out at about the same position. and I guess it could be close.


----------



## Ed Michrina (Dec 25, 2002)

I would guess it's at least 45 inches compared to Worm jacked photo of his 32 inch Musky  :lol:


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

Ed Michrina said:


> I would guess it's at least 45 inches compared to Worm jacked photo of his 32 inch Musky  :lol:



Holy crap I hope I dont tick that guy off he must be 18' tall!!! :yikes:


----------



## Molson (Apr 18, 2003)

ESOX said:


> the guy isn't pulling a classic Al Linder, holding it out at arms length.


If you ever met Al Linder you would realize why all his fish look huge. I thought I was vertically challenged. I bet that guy is all of 5' 6" and 95lbs soaking wet.


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

Al Linder has "little man syndrome"


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

the more i look at hte head of this fish that was freshly taken out of the lake the more i have to say he is a liar. the head just does not seem right so i will have to say this is a prank


----------

