Monster Snook!!
Monster Snook!!
saw this on Facebook - had to share
Regina Gallant stuck this 48" MEGA Snook in Fort Lauderdale
Regina Gallant stuck this 48" MEGA Snook in Fort Lauderdale
Re: Monster Snook!!
I wonder what it weighed? The Texas record shows 57.5 pounds, dating from 1937.
Big fish. I hope they CPR'd it.
TexasJim
Big fish. I hope they CPR'd it.
TexasJim
Re: Monster Snook!!
Am I the only one that thinks that pic is photo shopped?
.
.
Re: Monster Snook!!
I would be straining to hold that much fish. But an extreme wide angle lens could make the fish appear heavier than it is. A 48" snook might only go forty pounds, so that's probably doable for (me).Endo wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that pic is photo shopped?
.
- Cuervo Jones
- TKF 2000 club
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:12 pm
- Location: Hurtling towards oblivion with a smile
Re: Monster Snook!!
No. The tail looks mighty stiff. Something very weird going on with the photo for sure.Endo wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that pic is photo shopped?
.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Monster Snook!!
Thanks. There's at least 10 things in that pic that don't look right or make sense.
Maybe the other poster is correct and the camera lens was an extreme wide angle lens..like a fish-eye lens (no pun intended) and it is distorting it all way too much. I hate when people just can't take a normal perspective picture.
.
Maybe the other poster is correct and the camera lens was an extreme wide angle lens..like a fish-eye lens (no pun intended) and it is distorting it all way too much. I hate when people just can't take a normal perspective picture.
.
- Cuervo Jones
- TKF 2000 club
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:12 pm
- Location: Hurtling towards oblivion with a smile
Re: Monster Snook!!
Definitely some distortion. Her legs look like she's got elephantiasis. Which...maybe she has. Poor lady.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Monster Snook!!
Agree something fishy with that pic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- larry long shadows
- TKF 4000 Club
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: East Houston May the wind be to your back when you Yak
Re: Monster Snook!!
I think we are being Snookered
Re: Monster Snook!!
Kind of looks like Florida. Is that Mangrove bush in background?
Re: Monster Snook!!
She catches fish... big ones.
Re: Monster Snook!!
It's a "forced perspective" picture. It's a trick with lense/angles to make something look bigger than it is. Kinda like the rattlesnake picture that comes up every year and someone says look at this 10' rattler! I don't doubt it's a huge snook but the fish eye wide angle lense and angle make it look bigger than it really is. Still a nice catch!
- TroutSupport.com
- TKF 3000 Club
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:29 am
- Location: Gulf Coast Texas - Florida
- Contact:
Re: Monster Snook!!
Forced perspective.. LOL... what ever.. it's still a HUGE *** Snook. Props to the gal.
We, all fisherman, have taken pictures that exaggerate the size of a fish for decades... You're just jeally
We, all fisherman, have taken pictures that exaggerate the size of a fish for decades... You're just jeally
- Reefmonkey
- TKF 3000 Club
- Posts: 3322
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:31 pm
- Location: Houston - West Memorial Area
Re: Monster Snook!!
Looks to me like she's sitting and resting the fish on her lower thighs, which would allow her to support its large weight just fine. Her legs look normal for someone sitting on a low seat which might push her calves out. And since the fish is resting just above her knees, it can't be that far back from her body - she may be leaning back a bit, so a little bit of forced perspective, but not much. I think it's mostly just a really big snook. Kudos to her!
Re: Monster Snook!!
GUYS!
the chick catches BIGGER fish than we do
we're all just jealous
regardless of the camera perspective
the chick catches BIGGER fish than we do
we're all just jealous
regardless of the camera perspective
Re: Monster Snook!!
This to me is the most impressive fact on this thread. Knowing how cold intolerant snook are how the heck did a snook live long enough here in Texas to get that big? Wasn't it even colder back then?TexasJim wrote:I wonder what it weighed? The Texas record shows 57.5 pounds, dating from 1937.
Big fish. I hope they CPR'd it.
TexasJim
Even Florida has had some winter time cold water snook kills in the not too distant past.
Looks like the photo is legit to me. I think she has the fish resting on her knees and the knees are forward of her body. The fish is also very close to the camera. Those two things make the really big fish look enormous.
Her fingers on one hand are also barely visible and the other hand is hidden. That's usually what I look at to judge the size of a fish in a photo. Lots of folks take fish photos with their arms thrusted into the camera frame filling the frame with the fish, but their seemingly enormous fingers tend to give away the true size of the fish. She's not only a skilled fisherperson but also skilled at making a catch look bigger than it is.
-
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:29 pm
- Location: West Houston
Re: Monster Snook!!
I think real. The shadows behind her on the wall of the lower jaw, gill plate, the lure, and the anal fin make it look legit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:15 pm
Re: Monster Snook!!
There's nothing wrong with holding a fish up to the camera. I mean, the fish is the main subject matter, and focal point right?Now catching a small fish and saying its big while holding it up to the camera will get you called out every time, but a 48" snook is a 48"snook, and that's a big fish!
Now the thing that puzzles me is the weight of this monster; I wonder what she weighed? According to FWC, the state record snook is 30lb 4 oz, I would imagine a fish this big would be pretty darn close?
I mean, it's not just a 48" snook, it's a FAT 48" snook. Anybody know the weight?
Now the thing that puzzles me is the weight of this monster; I wonder what she weighed? According to FWC, the state record snook is 30lb 4 oz, I would imagine a fish this big would be pretty darn close?
I mean, it's not just a 48" snook, it's a FAT 48" snook. Anybody know the weight?
Re: Monster Snook!!
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profi ... ook/snook/
Link above has snook record for Florida at 44 lbs 3oz.
I still can't believe the Texas record snook is more than Florida's. I'd love to know more about the story of the big Texas fish.
Link above has snook record for Florida at 44 lbs 3oz.
I still can't believe the Texas record snook is more than Florida's. I'd love to know more about the story of the big Texas fish.
Re: Monster Snook!!
According to the IGFA site, the Florida record all tackle Record Snook at 44 lbs 3 oz is listed at 42 inches.
There is a 45 lbs 12 oz snook listed too. Maybe the FWC site has older information. The 45 lbs 12 oz one is from 2015.
The snook in the photo might be a record fish especially if it was 48 inches.
There is a 45 lbs 12 oz snook listed too. Maybe the FWC site has older information. The 45 lbs 12 oz one is from 2015.
The snook in the photo might be a record fish especially if it was 48 inches.
Re: Monster Snook!!
http://wrec.igfa.org/WRecordsList.aspx? ... ,%20common
According to IGFA, world record Snook was 53lbs 10oz from Costa Rico. That fish was listed at 48.5"
According to IGFA, world record Snook was 53lbs 10oz from Costa Rico. That fish was listed at 48.5"
-
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:15 pm
Re: Monster Snook!!
Thanks for the clarification Karstopo, I knew 30lbs seemed a little light; I'm not sure what was up with that? my info was from 2015-2016... http://myfwc.com/media/3817801/FWCSaltw ... 5-2016.pdf
Can't see the IGFA links, I'm not a member. I might be more inclined to sign up if I was a record holder like you Katstopo.
I'd like to hear a story on the Texas record as well. I think tarpon and snook maybe less resilient than trout and reds, and their decline may have had something to do with pollution, overfishing , and the diversion and conversion of their rivers and passes which is critical for their propagation; I'm sure some of it was just natural causes, but not most of it.
Florida, from what I hear, might be getting to that point as well with all the stuff going on in the Everglades right now... Who knows maybe one day a 48" snook in Florida will seem like a fish tale to our grandkids, I sure hope they get things figured out.
Can't see the IGFA links, I'm not a member. I might be more inclined to sign up if I was a record holder like you Katstopo.
I'd like to hear a story on the Texas record as well. I think tarpon and snook maybe less resilient than trout and reds, and their decline may have had something to do with pollution, overfishing , and the diversion and conversion of their rivers and passes which is critical for their propagation; I'm sure some of it was just natural causes, but not most of it.
Florida, from what I hear, might be getting to that point as well with all the stuff going on in the Everglades right now... Who knows maybe one day a 48" snook in Florida will seem like a fish tale to our grandkids, I sure hope they get things figured out.
Re: Monster Snook!!
You are the second person in as many days that mentioned something bad going on in the everglades. So what going on there?
Someone talked me into getting a IGFA membership. It was I think $15. There was some sort of conservation angle they used on me.
No record holder here. I did catch a state record for fly rod Croaker, but I never followed up with Surfside Marina on the paper work I filled out there. It was kind of ridiculous anyway. The curent record fish was 8.5 ounces something like that. Mine was 10 ounces. That's pretty tiny for a Croaker. It was tasty though.
The listed on the TP&W site Texas state record snook isn't evidently recognized by the IGFA. The IGFA is pretty interesting I guess. There are literally thousands of records for just about any fish you can think of. Not just fly fishing either.
Someone talked me into getting a IGFA membership. It was I think $15. There was some sort of conservation angle they used on me.
No record holder here. I did catch a state record for fly rod Croaker, but I never followed up with Surfside Marina on the paper work I filled out there. It was kind of ridiculous anyway. The curent record fish was 8.5 ounces something like that. Mine was 10 ounces. That's pretty tiny for a Croaker. It was tasty though.
The listed on the TP&W site Texas state record snook isn't evidently recognized by the IGFA. The IGFA is pretty interesting I guess. There are literally thousands of records for just about any fish you can think of. Not just fly fishing either.