I am also. I like it being publicized to know that the size is attainable, but the record has an implication of fishing prowess playing into it.WOW ! I wonder what it weighed when first caught. Probably another oz. I am torn though, as to whether pond raised fish should be allowed in the record books.
I had a buddy in CO that called range cattle "slow elk".I have no problem counting fish from a private pond, but I am iffy about fish that are fed regularly. I'm okay (kind of) with ponds where they have feeders to bring fish to one area, but I feel like if most of their diet comes from feed then they should be for fun not records. It's like hunting, I admire people with large hunting lands where they carefully manage their deer populations, give them access to good nutrients, and plant feed plots to grow the most healthy deer they can. But you won't see me walking into a cow field, shooting the biggest one and bragging about it.
Or biggest from public water. Wild, native or other designations are another can of worms entirely...At least in the record books it says where the fish was caught and people can see for themselves if it was wild caught or farm caught. That way you and I can decide which catches we respect and which we don't. Maybe they should add a subscript for the private pond caught ones that tell where the biggest wild one was caught?
See, *those* are the fish that, if you catch one, should really receive the publicity of a record. I agree, the private pond fish are cool stories and photos but too subject to manipulation. If I go down to my pond and throw live crickets on the water for many years and cull the small fish to let a few grow big, then years later decide to catch one on a live cricket, that's not even remotely the same as if Mack had caught one of those wild sunfish.impressive fish....
note - last year on a certai flow i saw 2 green sunfish in a clear pool that were surely state record specimens..they would not hit anything.