|
Guys, guys, guys. Let's ease up on the kid a little. It certainly is right on the border with being a legal fish and we all know that they can shrink a tad, a lousy pic, and yada yada yada. We all also remember strugling to get that first keeper fish, right? I remember trying to get my first real keeper when I started shore fishing again and I kept missing by an inch or less. What happened next? They raised the miniums to 36 inches - it was frustrating. What I am trying to say is that the fish "could" have been 28 inches with the tail squeezed when it was still flopping around. Maybe. There is enough element of doubt that we should hold back a bit as a group.
Notaro - all that being said, that fish really looks like it could be short. There are extremely few fisherman that will tolerate ANYONE taking undersized fish. It's a major NoNo. And it is seriously frowned on. That fish also is doubtful 10 pounds.
I have a couple recommendations here that I hope others will agree on:
First - don't keep a 28" fish as a lot of people think they shrink as they dry up and get smaller. You also will never know if a DEM officer doesn't measure as liberally as you did - you'll get fined.
Second - be damn certain that a fish is of sufficient length that there is no question to being a legal fish or not.
I'm offering this as advice and I sincerley hope you take it. That fish is real borderline by that picture to be taken for a legal fish/ If it was not, or you fudged your numbers a little, you really will have disapointed a lot of anglers that are serious about the state of the fishery. In fact, the vast majority of anglers that keep a fish wouldn't keep one that small, legal or not... Just keep this in mind please...
Thanks,
John
|