NJ Fishing Advertise Here at New Jersey's Number 1 Fishing Website!


Message Board


NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey - View Single Post - Dorothy B Saturday stripers and MONSTER blues
View Single Post
  #4  
Old 10-19-2013, 07:14 PM
tombanjo tombanjo is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Default Re: Dorothy B Saturday stripers and MONSTER blues

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBird
I was just thinking about those giant bluefish today and after a little research I think I can put this into perspective. A 22 lb blue (weighed on our digital scale) is less than 10 lbs off the world record. It is a bit more than 2/3 the weight.

If these were stripers, 2/3 the weight of the world record, they would be in the mid 50's. We caught a lot of these monster blues today so just imagine if they were bass of that caliber. It would be beyond epic! The stuff of dreams!

How about fluke? Can you imagine a day with a bunch of 14 lb fish landed (again, around 2/3 the weight of the WR)? You would think you died and went to heaven!

Now, I know blues don't have the glamorous status of striped bass or fluke but right now the chance to catch the bluefish of a lifetime exists. Just sayin', guys...
Another way to put it is the WR blue is around 33% bigger than the many massive 23lb fish that we caught today on the GE which in turn are nearly 50% larger then a 12lb blue which was formerly called a slammer. LOL, I mean a 12lb blue is nothing to sneeze at. Fighting these 20lb+ fish all day makes the thought of a 30lb+ blue unfathomable. I might add these huge fish also fight in geometric proportion to their size, even more it seems, as I've been watching reels explode and rods breaking (two for me) for the past 30 plus days of this unprecedednted and historic run. GET OUT THERE, chances are you'll never see this again. I also get a chuckle out of listening to some of the old timers telling me they remember this kind of fishing in the 80's at 17 fathoms. No, sorry, you're wrong unless you meant the 1880's.
Reply With Quote