|
|
Posts: 214
| All right lets hear the comments seen it on Facebook and another site caught fishing for Bass May 9th Little Sturgeon Bay there is a picture and long article if you look for it 
I have seen many giants up there bass fishing in May 
D |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hard to say. I've seen the photo and it's hard to tell if it might be that long. Too bad they didn't take a picture with the thing laying on a flat surface with a tape measure laying alongside it.
I've been told that muskies in Green Bay don't get that large though, so I'm pretty skeptical...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | An excellent stand to take, actually. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 735
Location: Apparently where the Muskie aren't | Yep, wish people would hold something next to the fish (not 2 feet behind it) a can, bottle, rod, cooler, anything to help calculate the length |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: WI | Musky_Mo16 - 5/23/2017 8:39 PM
Yep, wish people would hold something next to the fish (not 2 feet behind it) a can, bottle, rod, cooler, anything to help calculate the length
I'm guessing the first thing they thought after releasing that fish was "Shoot! We didn't hold the coke can by it! The musky forums will not believe us."
Nice fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | I will try and dig up my photo calipers i bought in hayward. That will clear up any confusion. |
|
| |
|
| The guy must be 7 feet tall. The fish is five feet long and is being held a foot off the floor and looks to come a foot shy of the top of his head. I think he should put the bass rod down and hit the hardwood! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| well the article says 40lbs 60.75" and 28" girth. Doesnt add up. I fish that area all the time have yet to see a 60 and I have heard of at least 50 from bass guys. Must be fishing the wrong spots. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Maybe you should start fishing with Bass guys?
PS: Then call me, as I only live about 30 miles from there... |
|
| |
|
| That would be a world record release!!! Finally one over 60" Congrats to the angler on this trophy catch!!! Call the MDWKRP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| A fisherman lying about fish size?! No! Say it isn't so! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7010
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | If this becomes a rip on the angler fest because of the hold or the stated size...to the basement.
60" or 50" it's a great fish...even if it peees us muskie guys to see a lowly bass angler catch it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: On the water | I don’t care what size it is. Congratulations on a great fish.
The important thing is that he released it to fight another day.
Good Luck to all, Tom. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Cfollow: First, you cannot see how far the fish is off the floor; second, the tip of the fishes jaw is at least even with the top of the guys sunglasses; third, the fish is curled at the rear section making it look shorter than it really is.
GIANT!!! and likely a completely spawned out female. Know of a 63 incher that was kept a few years back, caught at the end of June and weighed "only" 49 pounds.
60 inchers do exist...60 pounders not so much... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | Where did you find the picture I would like to see it. Could so.e one post a link thank you |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Pic of that 63" would be pretty cool. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| Musky Hunter site has a small picture of the guy holding hos fish. NICE fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Come on guys, we all know bass fishermen add 10" to every muskie they catch! |
|
| |
|
| 60.75 X 28.5 is over 60 lbs. Thats the formula. If you accept 60 3/4 then you must accept 28.5. And if it was spawned out it was even bigger. A true giant record fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Didn't the article say he measured the length with his fishing rod and marked a spot, and the girth with the drawstring of his pants? May be a possibility of an error or three there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| The 40# weight cited in the article is what threw me off. That seems light for the measurements given, especially the girth. But whatever, even if it wasn't 60" it is still a true GIANT. Congratulations to the angler. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | well, it looks to be a lot closer to 60" than the fish that clown from Indiana tries to pawn off as 50s... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1405
Location: Detroit River | Muskie Treats - 5/24/2017 11:00 AM Come on guys, we all know bass fishermen add 10" to every muskie they catch! ;) I thought their bump boards started at 7" ??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 815
Location: Waukee, IA | Slamr - 5/24/2017 8:23 AM
If this becomes a rip on the angler fest because of the hold or the stated size...to the basement.
60" or 50" it's a great fish...even if it peees us muskie guys to see a lowly bass angler catch it! ;-)
I muskie fished during a bass tournament on Sunday and got one largemouth that would have weighed more than the biggest tournament fish. Nobody congratulated me |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I looked at the one photo and read the article. What a great fish and nice job on tag teaming it to get her into the boat (the fish was caught out of season so release was mandatory). I enjoyed article and noticed that they borrowed a digital scale and tape measure from another boat, yet they also used a fishing rod and drawstring from a sweatshirt to measure it instead of the tape measure for unknown reasons. There is a conflict of about 20 lbs between the recorded measurement of 60.75 x 28.25 and digital scale weight reading of 40.1 lbs, and IMHO either one or the other is not accurate (or the weight formula that has been successfully used on thousands of fish should be thrown out). Again, IMHO considering these are tournament fisherman with a digital scale, the scale reading with the other boat nearby is probably more accurate than the measurements, especially considering the methods used to obtain the measurements. Further, the general look of the fish and known size favors the fish weighing about 40 lbs (digital scale) versus 60 lbs (measurements) considering how rare 60" muskies seem to be. With that said; it would be good to see additional photos if available, as well as the video mentioned in the article instead of just the 1 photo. He also mentioned of having a replica made, a reenactment picture with him holding the replica in the same position could be interesting. Either way; congratulations to the anglers on a great catch! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 77
| Well said BNelson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| BNelson - 5/24/2017 11:13 AM
well, it looks to be a lot closer to 60" than the fish that clown from Indiana tries to pawn off as 50s...
Fact.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: West Central WI | It amazes me how fast the line forms and how some people are quick to question all the things they should have done when they weren’t anywhere ready to catch a fish like this. I’m jealous, but they do deserve credit for what they did with what they had available to them. If they’d been out muskie fishing, and had the full complement of proper gear to document (especially bump board with photo of fish on it), then we’d have something we can discuss with better accuracy. A statement from those in the other boat would help too. The article clearly stated that the anglers borrowed the tape measure and scale from the other boat to record the details so I’m going to give them credit for reading the tape numbers correctly. Could they have lied? Maybe, but who has that proof and I’m uncomfortable trying to debunk what they claim if I don’t have proof otherwise. What they marked the pole for was “to get a feel for how long the fish was.” They didn’t say it was to get a mark for later measurement. The fish didn’t meet the formula weights so the bigger question to me seems to be the weight. Since the other boat had the scale, we’ll probably never know if it was subsequently tested with a known weight to see if it’s accurate. So – they did the best they could with what was available in fishing gear and measurements, they shared their story with us, and they aren’t trying to claim a record. Full credit to them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | Dam nice fish don't care how big it is I dream of a fish luke that every time I go out. Fish like that is what keeps me going |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| It's not hard to believe a Muskellunge could reach 60 inches, guys. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 815
Location: Waukee, IA | My thoughts are this; they didn't claim it to be anything. They said the measurements we're APPROXIMATE using things bass anglers would have in their boat. It's a heck of a big fish, and they let it go. Kudos to them |
|
| |
|
Posts: 983
| that is a huge fish either way....Dont see why lie about a fish your not claiming is any type of record seems he had no idea what he really caught til after the fact and it says he measured the fish on his fishing rod so you would think it would be fairly accurate if you can use a tape measure |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| Here is a link to a picture of the fish if anybody missed it...
http://www.muskyhunter.com/musky-matters/bass-angler-boats-60-inch-...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 27
Location: Badger State | There are a few comments in this thread that indicate the writers, who are getting all technical on the details, are either misreading the article, or making misleading claims against the anglers. They did say they borrowed the tape and digital scale from the other boat to “get the details” (their words).” I know rulers that are shorter, but every tape I’ve seen, and the one I carry on my boat, are long enough to accurately measure the fish – why lie? Especially when the other boat is there. They used the pole mark to get a feel for how big the fish was (their words) and I can imagine they stood next to that after all was said and done. Somebody said the measurements were approximate – that word or even suggesting anything was approximate was NOT in the article. Why make that up in a critique of this story? Things happen fast in situations like this so I can’t criticize using the sweatshirt drawstring vs. using the tape measure. I’m sure it was a bit stressful getting what they did done and getting the fish successfully released was on their mind. I also don’t think they tried to manipulate the hold to try and make the fish larger in the photo. The one arm is held close to his body and the guy’s height isn’t known for reference. Too many unknowns to put anything down on these guys who had a day all of us dream about. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| 52"-55" green bay fish weigh 38-42 pounds in July. I also have a hard time believing this fish spawned already almost every fish caught on opener in green bay have spawning scars and from my past experience fishing this area the muskies in little sturgeon probably still have not spawned this year. It really is a giant fish that anybody would be happy to catch. my grandfather always used to say never let the facts get in the way of a good story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
Location: Aurora | That photo doesn't look alerted in anyway. If you enlarge it you can't even see any trace of photo-shopping an enlarged fish back into the original picture. |
|
| |
|
| if it helps the guy is 5'6" with heels on |
|
| |
|
Posts: 47
| Bass guys always overestimate everything over 24". Even at that, I couldn't find the article/pic very easily so I gave up. Big fish? Most likely. Near WR? Whatever. Go for it guys/gals. I just like to fish and value every creature that finds the end of my line.
Except the 20# snapper that peeled of my partners minnowbait to hammer my bucktail..... But that's another story.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 293
Location: Sakatchewan,Canada | Larry Ramsell - 5/24/2017 8:55 AM
Cfollow: First, you cannot see how far the fish is off the floor; second, the tip of the fishes jaw is at least even with the top of the guys sunglasses; third, the fish is curled at the rear section making it look shorter than it really is.
GIANT!!! and likely a completely spawned out female. Know of a 63 incher that was kept a few years back, caught at the end of June and weighed "only" 49 pounds.
60 inchers do exist...60 pounders not so much...
Even you will admit Williamson's fish was over 60lbs... come on Larry! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| Its a VERY BIG fish--- I will take the angler at his word of 60" He doesn't seem to have anything to gain by lying. It is BIG for sure---- Congratulations on a true Giant Musky-- Released--can't complain about that. Many, Many BIG SKI's in the BAY--- Lots of 52-54" caught in any given year--- I could see a 60 coming out of there-- so that again makes it very believable to me.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Pike Master: I didn't say 60 pounders didn't exist, I just said "...not so much.", meaning they are RARE! I believe Williamson's fish was legit and over 60 pounds...OK? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | Nice fish, kudos to the angler.
Maybe all the doubting John Doe's on this board would be happier if he had killed it for better length and weight measurements? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I think I like being a member of this group, but sometimes not so much! Are we really so "wised up" and expert or are we just full of something else...something that smells like a horse's behind? Sure looks like that! My comment, "Great fish, congrats, I've never come close, that's a fish of a lifetime, Udaman!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 135
| Funny how if someone says 60" the world falls apart, but if it was 58" everyone would say "wow" instead. I suspect there could easily be 2" of measurement error possible in their methods. But ultimately, who cares? Big female that every single one of us would like to catch - and it was released. Awesome!
The bass angler who caught this fish was interviewed last night during a Facebook Live episode of Bob Mehsikomer's new show called "Fishnstix TV." Tournament bass fishermen from Illinois, fish was caught up shallow in Little Sturgeon on a small jig using 8lb braid after an extended fight. The angler sounds more excited and amused than anything, definitely not trying to make a claim to gain attention. The interview describes their measurement methods, includes good pictures, and discusses the hopefully soon-to-be-released video.
The interview begins at the 1:02:00 mark and runs through 1:15:00.
https://www.facebook.com/FishnStixTV/videos/1916322435316791/
Edited by Glaucus_ 5/25/2017 8:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 293
Location: Sakatchewan,Canada | Larry Ramsell - 5/25/2017 6:08 AM
Pike Master: I didn't say 60 pounders didn't exist, I just said "...not so much.", meaning they are RARE! I believe Williamson's fish was legit and over 60 pounds...OK?
Sounds fair. On the other hand, the fish being discussed here is neither 60" nor does it support a 28" plus girth... I am guessing the people that believe those specs also believe in Spray's records...  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 112
Location: Illinois | That's a great fish either way. They didn't seem to be worried about the actual "facts" for some record or "financial"acclaim. Just some boys who caught a fantastic fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
| What a great fish and a great video! As Junkman says above, I'm always amazed at the negativity. So let's set up a scenario. I'm from Illinois and I'm going to drive up to GB and fish for a 50" musky while claiming to be fishing for smallies. When I catch this 50" I'm planning on claiming it is a SIXTY! Just to make everyone mad. Come on guys. Could there be some error in their measuring? Of course there could be. It could be shorter or longer. Give them credit. They certainly are not out there trying to catch a record. Let them enjoy their incredible luck! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | At the risk of irritating the masses, here's how I feel about the whole "critical of muskie pictures on the Internet" dilemma...
If you post a picture of a large musky on the Internet, or *allow* your picture of said musky to be posted, and you are claiming that it's something like 60-3/4 inches, then you are claiming a certain level of precision. Therefore you are inviting scrutiny. In my world, if I make a claim that some C++ code I write executes (runs) at 75% of the speed of the old version, then I had better be able to prove it. It's not even a thing about doing it for money--it's about making a claim while citing a specific level of precision. I need to furnish empirical data to support my claim. And the stated length of 60-3/4 (60.75) inches is a VERY precise measurement. It's to the hundredths place. Had they said something like this:
Although we didn't have a tape measure that long, we estimated the length of the fish to be about 60 inches...
Then I'd be like...wow NICE FISH! And I'd leave it go at that. But when someone makes a claim that the length is "60-3/4 inches" with a girth of 28 inches or so, but then cites a weight that doesn't support those measurements (at least by the 3-4 accepted formulae that are floating around out there), then they're opening themselves up to criticism, IMHO. And that's the way it should be when it comes right down to it. I submit that we SHOULD challenge things that seem a little unrealistic. This isn't about envy, ego, arrogance or anything else like that--it's about being accurate in a claim that clearly has an INCREDIBLE level of significance within the sport. So it's really quite simple then: If you don't want to be subjected to that level of criticism (ie; scrutiny), then don't post a picture of a very large fish with given dimensions that claim a level of precision not supported by the evidence you're providing in the photos you've furnished.
I'm not trying to be an ass or anything--and anyone who knows me knows that I really couldn't care less about your fish being bigger than mine. Hey, if you're a better angler than I am, that's great for you! But so what? I like that--because it keeps me motivated to go fishing. But then people shouldn't whine when folks are scratching their heads trying to figure out your stated measurements. Want to avoid that? Just post an image with the fish lying on a tape measure, and with said tape measure around the fish's belly. What, you didn't have such a tape measure? No problem--just don't make claims about the precision of the fish's size when you can't substantiate it.
TB
EDIT: Note--I have no idea whether or not the fish pictured in this thread is truly over 60" in length. As I stated in my earlier posts...there's just not enough information given to speak on that, one way or the other. The statements in this post are simply my attempt to justify people being critical of such claims regarding fish size (with poor documentation of such).
Edited by tcbetka 5/25/2017 6:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | I dont believe the angler posted the picture of the fish on this site even though it was written about publicly. It is a huge fish. It seems to have been measured with some level of inaccuracy. Is it that big a deal? Its not like the guy from indiana who is entering a fish of suspect dimension in a contest. I would bet if the angler knew the scrutiny he would come under, he probably would have released it and shut his mouth. I doubt it really matters to the angler if it was 60 3/4, 60 1/4 or 59 1/2.
Edited by ToddM 5/25/2017 6:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Then I would submit that's what he(they) should have done. Did you listen to the interview he did on Bob M's show?
Like it or not, we live in a "prove it" society boys and girls. Despite the #fakeNews hashtags being thrown around in mainstream media these days, we really DO need to provide objective data to substantiate our claims. At least that's one way we could avoid all the seemingly endless debate our society seems to be having these days.
It's very simple really: You assert something? Then prove it. Or don't make the claim. If you do make the claim, then you invite scrutiny..and that's the bottom line. And by the way--the angler IS in fact giving interviews, and is stating the purported length, girth and weight. So there's that.
Just my $0.02 though of course, YMMV.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | He is not seeking interviews. The interviews are seeking him. I did not hear the interview. Unlike your job, my job where we have to be accurate because there is company money on the line, there is nothing at stake here. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | The angler can always say "Sorry, I don't want to do any interviews." But he's basically painted himself into a corner here when it really comes down to it--because he did the first, and submitted some rather precise dimensions that were gathered in an imprecise fashion. So now what can a guy do?
But my point here was that we shouldn't make this a big argument where people are criticizing people who are critical of some dimensions that look to be inconsistent with the stated size of the fish. It's a #*^@ed BIG fish. Personally, I would just have preferred he said it that way and left it at that...instead of measurements that convey a degree of precision and accuracy that cannot be supported by the evidence presented.
So we disagree, but I certainly respect your opinion.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | I would think they meant 60 3/4 inches. You make it sound like this fish was described to the thousandth of an inch. Jeez, talk about over analyzing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: WI | Come on. What would be the harm in just taking an extra 2 minutes to triple check all your measurements? Maybe get a couple good horizontal hold pics with the fish held out at a variety of distances too. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jeff78 - 5/25/2017 9:18 PM
I would think they meant 60 3/4 inches. You make it sound like this fish was described to the thousandth of an inch. Jeez, talk about over analyzing.
No...it was to the hundredths of an inch. Try to keep up.
The point is that they gave a relatively exact (precise) measurement using imprecise methods. That's may well be OK, but be prepared to substantiate your claim. Period. It really is that simple--no over-analysis required.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi Everybody,
Hope I'm not breaking any rules here, but this seems to be the paragraph in question... If I am, please remove this...
"Anglers in another boat who had watched the fight had a tape measure and digital scale, and let the anglers borrow it to record the details. Gensini said the musky had a 28 1/4-inch girth, and weighed 40.1 pounds on the scale before they released it. “We also marked the length of the fish on a rod. I just wanted to get a feel for how big the fish was. I even pulled the drawstring out of my sweatshirt to girth it, and cut it off at the girth,” Gensini said."
(Taken directly from the MH staff article posted on the website)
From what I see written, I see this as a decent measurement. One with a tape measure, then marking the rod length and girthing again with a string. As a mathematics instructor, I'd say from what I read in the article they did a good job of measuring being in a pinch and not working with a fish of this caliber with regularity. The drawstring used as a girth measurement would be close...but not perfect...but I will err on the side of benefit of the doubt and say they did a good job on things. Even though they are getting interviews, etc....so what...let them enjoy it. The fish is still swimming, they are happy fisherman, they are not claiming any record, and it's a great fish.
With that being said...I say... Great fish!! Great Job!!, Enjoy the memory!! CATCH IT AGAIN!!
Steve
Edited by VMS 5/26/2017 7:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | I am sure if they were seasoned musky fisherman or entering the fish as a matter of record they would have realized the scrutiny of they're measurements. They are guilty of accurately measuring an imperfect method. I believe the intent was to be as accurate as they could given what they had. I doubt they realized how much hype it would recieve in the musky world. I do not know if bass guys analyze pics of 25"+ bass the way muskie fisherman do 50"+ muskies, maybe thats the problem.
Edited by ToddM 5/26/2017 7:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | ToddM - 5/26/2017 7:37 AM
I am sure if they were seasoned musky fisherman or entering the fish as a matter of record they would have realized the scrutiny of they're measurements. They are guilty of accurately measuring an imperfect method. I believe the intent was to be as accurate as they could given what they had. I doubt they realized how much hype it would recieve in the musky world. I do not know if bass guys analyze pics of 25"+ bass the way muskie fisherman do 50"+ muskies, maybe thats the problem.
Great post Todd...I concur. My only point is that we shouldn't get down on folks for being skeptical of such catches, when there is 1) inadequate documentation of 2) pictures that don't appear to substantiate the stated size.
Was this a 60.75" fish? I have no clue. I hope it was--because I fish out there! But I can't tell it from the evidence presented, and since the 60" mark is pretty much the holy grail in our sport...I'd like to see it documented a little better.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I became very excited when I saw the 60 3/4" measurement as well because it implies a very precise measurement was taken. I've been patiently waiting for a well documented 60" for about as long as a well documented 60 lber (and I'm still waiting). This does not mean I don't believe they exist, but please forgive me if I'm not gushing over this latest claim either because like Tom, I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of accountability if you put it out there. If you find this statement to be negative, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, same as anyone else provided they're not out of line. With that said; I wholeheartedly agree that this was a great fish and some congratulations are in order, but I also stand by my earlier statement of: “There is a conflict of about 20 lbs between the recorded measurement of 60.75 x 28.25 and digital scale weight reading of 40.1 lbs, and IMHO either one or the other is not accurate (or the weight formula that has been successfully used on thousands of fish should be thrown out).” I see nothing wrong or negative about this because it's either a 60lb class muskie if you choose to believe the measurements, or it's a 40 lb class muskie if choose to believe the scale… you can believe one or the other, (or both if you want) but IMHO there is a high probability of one being more reasonable than the other. Here's a fish with a well documented 28” girth… which fish would you rather catch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7HZXWfLgO8 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | I think it would have been great to know the precise measurements of the fish. Seems like ot of fish this size are not measured in a way we would like to see cor accuracy. What is interesting too this fish has recieved more scrutiny than the 60" lac suel fish caught 10+ years ago that became the MI big fish release that year. This fish appears bigger than that one.
Edited by ToddM 5/26/2017 8:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Question in regards to the validity of the formulas...
Is there much evidence out there of legitimately weighed and measured fish above 50 inches to support the formulas actually do a good job of predicting a reasonable weight estimate? Do we have enough valid evidence of mid-upper 50" to over 60" fish to support the formulas?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | That fish in the YouTube video Jerry just linked to has to be one of the best on-film catches I've ever seen--certainly in the top five. Maybe Justin's 57" fish (shown on Keye's Outdoors a couple years ago) was more impressive, because of the circumstances. But what a pig! And the documentation is superb.
One final note regarding the fish that is the subject of this thread...
People have to understand, I guess, where I'm coming from when I am critical of the sorts of claims regarding the 60.75" fish. I have personally spent YEARS of my life trying to get the 54" size limit implemented on Green Bay. I spent well over a thousand hours (if not two thousand) reading all the musky literature, talking to hundreds of anglers, talking to biologists at length, and answering countless forum posts, phone calls and emails. And getting threats. Much of the argument against the 54" size limit on Green Bay was predicated on things like the "fast growers, short livers" argument. I spent HUNDREDS of hours researching that particular ideology. More time than I can count. In the end, we were able to get the 54" size limit implemented--thanks to the efforts of many people besides myself. But now that a few years have passed (well 10 actually...how time flies) and we're starting to see larger fish being caught, and sampled in the DNR's Fyke nets in the spring, we're starting to realize just what we thought--that the size potential of the fish was probably better than they were showing a decade ago. Knock on wood!
So when someone posts about a 60+ inch musky, out of Green Bay, you'll have to forgive me but I take it pretty seriously because to me it's a big deal. A BIG deal.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/26/2017 9:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | VMS - 5/26/2017 8:44 AM
Question in regards to the validity of the formulas...
Is there much evidence out there of legitimately weighed and measured fish above 50 inches to support the formulas actually do a good job of predicting a reasonable weight estimate? Do we have enough valid evidence of mid-upper 50" to over 60" fish to support the formulas?
Steve
Good question!
About ten years ago I researched all the known formulae used to estimate fish weight given length and girth. Larry Ramsell and I did it. Then I created a Windows-based application that will give you the results using the four main equations, and one extra
anecdotal equation. It's in the archives here on MF, if you just search for it. But there is a blurb about each equation included in the application. It should still run on Windows, so give it a try if you can find it. I'll try to find it as well, and add a link here.
TB
Attachments
----------------
 Muskellunge Weight Estimator.zip (15KB - 403 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here is the output of my calculator, for a 60.75 x 28.25" fish. If you click the "More Info" button next to the various formulae in the calculator, a dialog window will open and you'll see some historical information regarding that formula.
TB
Attachments
----------------
GRB Fish.png (44KB - 408 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 151
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI | took a minute to watch the Facebook video...that guy is gotta be laughing at all the social media comments (if he bothers reading any). They did the best they could be with what they had. Either way it's a great fish!
Attachments
----------------
IMG_2359.JPG (28KB - 369 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3469
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I remember that thread... I don't run window based programs (apple user as I teach) so I would doubt that it would run, but worth a try...
What I am wondering, though...is how much actual data is out there that exists? Reason I ask is the formulas for the most part are based on volume, then converting that to a weight...These will for the most part primarily base on a uniform girth of the fish. From my own observations of the true giants out there, many are not uniform in girth, thus taking the largest measurement would influence the weight and potentially influence the formula's calculations. Many look like they are anomalies as compared to a more normally proportioned fish.
I would not be surprised if a girth is large and weight is down... as the fish in question here is described as being. if the fish is spawned out, I would say there is a lot of excess room inside the body cavity due to expansion of the body that is not returned to normal state (similar to all pregnancies-post birth)...So weight can drop significantly below that of a full body carrying eggs. Some shrinkage in girth I am sure would happen right away...but not all the way... Catch this same fish a month earlier....how much more might it weigh with what...almost a million eggs being carried in it's body?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I should probably re-code this in C++ using something like Qt Creator, so that it could be then built for any platform including iOS and Android. I'm not sure there's enough interest to do that though, to be honest. It would probably take 40-50 hours to get all builds (platforms) working, as an estimate. But if people think it would be worthwhile, I'll consider it. It would be nice to have a mobile app version though--although it would take a fair bit to get it into the Apple store. I don't even want to think about that: You need a developer's account, and then (as I recall) you need to give them the source code and have them evaluate it for security...which (I've been told) can take a few months. Ugh.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | tcbetka - 5/26/2017 10:22 AM
I should probably re-code this in C++ using something like Qt Creator, so that it could be then built for any platform including iOS and Android. I'm not sure there's enough interest to do that though, to be honest. It would probably take 40-50 hours to get all builds (platforms) working, as an estimate. But if people think it would be worthwhile, I'll consider it. It would be nice to have a mobile app version though--although it would take a fair bit to get it into the Apple store. I don't even want to think about that: You need a developer's account, and then (as I recall) you need to give them the source code and have them evaluate it for security...which (I've been told) can take a few months. Ugh.
TB
There's already a calculator in the app stores and it uses 4 of the equations and also provides an average of them.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Is there? Cool...I hadn't seen that. I'll look in the Android store today. Thanks for the tip.
TB
EDIT: The only one I could find in the Google Play store was the "Mad Musky App" application. Is that the one you're talking about? It doesn't say anything about using four calculators though, so I'm not sure it's the same one you're referring to.
Edited by tcbetka 5/26/2017 11:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | That is a true giant. The measurements seem a little suspicious, especially the girth but it doesn't really matter to me.
It would be interesting to find out if the scale they used was ever tested for accuracy. Even if the measurements are less than reported that looks bigger than a 40 lber to me.
If this guy uses his measurements is this going to be the longest replica ever made? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Seeing Measurements were taken of both length and girth
And virtually all phones are video capable
Was there any video of either of these measurements being taken
If not......why????? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It sounds as though there was probably some video--at least that's the impression I got from listening to the angler's interview on Bob M's show. The link is up above. Bob hinted that he might get something more than just pictures.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | tcbetka - 5/26/2017 11:13 AM
Is there? Cool...I hadn't seen that. I'll look in the Android store today. Thanks for the tip.
TB
EDIT: The only one I could find in the Google Play store was the "Mad Musky App" application. Is that the one you're talking about? It doesn't say anything about using four calculators though, so I'm not sure it's the same one you're referring to.
The one I have, for Apple, is called Musky Weight Calculator |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is the link to the "Mille Lacs Queen" thread of 2015:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10...
This thread explains the "NEW" formula we use here for "Released World Record" class fish. This new formula was built on data from fish from 53 to 61 1/4 pounds from all over the North American range. I sincerely believe it to be the best formula to use in "ESTIMATING" the weight of fish in these weight ranges. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 151
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI | There is a video as he said in the interview with Bob but he said there's a lot of bad language so they haven't shared it. I'm sure they'll edit for language and then share it on some media platform. Guy seems like a good dude that really doesn't care. They might not be musky fisherman but the fact they are pre fishing a trouney makes me think they're not complete beginners to fishing either. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt they did their best to accurately measure and document it. If they were musky guys that new how important the 60" mark is I'd actually be a little more suspicious! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hi Larry,
What is the derivation of the modified Crawford formula? How'd you come up with '8' instead of '10' in there? I went through that thread you linked to, but didn't see the derivation described. Did I miss something?
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Espy - 5/26/2017 1:31 PM
The one I have, for Apple, is called Musky Weight Calculator
Nope...nothing like that found in the Google Play store. I'll check the App store on my iPad tonight.
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 88
Location: Wisconsin | Congrats to the gentlemen on a great catch. Whether it's as big as stated, I guess we'll never know for sure. If 60's are out there, GB would be among the waters that I'd like to think would have one. I fish out there a lot myself and know of lots of big fish caught that aren't posed online. Doubt I'll ever catch one that big, but one thing is for sure. Me, my fishing partner(s), and a few close friends will be the only ones who will ever know about it. Tom |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
Location: Aurora | Is it jest me or does it sound like he's saying, "forty-sixty and three quarters" in the video..
This whole thing might jest be a misunderstanding, eh fellas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Jerry, you should be 'scrubbing edges'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Marshfield,WI | Maybe the best way to settle the debate on the size of this world class giant is for one of you to go over to Little Sturgeon Bay and catch this monster yourself and let us know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom: Full details probably on a different thread...will have to search when I get time. What I did was use my data base for just those fish from 53 to 61 1/4 pounds and then worked with the new minus number until I got real close but never under the actual weight. Will try and get you more details. May have a Word Doc. with the info and if I do, I'll email it to you. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sounds great, thanks!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: With my son on the water | What ever the size of the fish out of GB really is (I don't care) it is a True Giant.
But what amazes me is how big a Stocked fish can get, and even more important is hat's off to the SMALL partial handle full of guys back in the late 80s that even pushed to stock the bay. Granted after time the crowd grew, but the core group of guys who made it happen was very small. I still remember the push back we got at multiple meetings. Many of these guys are older now and some have passed. But they should never be forgotten, what vision they had.
To this day MOST people think all the fish in the bay are natural, (not to say there are none) but this fishery (both Walleyes & Muskie) needs to be credited to sportsman making it happen. In the case of the muskie, wow. It almost never happened, both politically and technically. The challenges were massive.
Enjoy your day and remember why we have a Holiday.
Thanks for our Freedom and Protection Guys & Gals. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great point(s).
When I gave a presentation on the fishery back in 2007, the research that I did showed that there was well over $100K donated by anglers and other interested parties since the reintroduction effort was started in the late 1980s. There were a couple source who felt pretty strongly that the amount donated was actually over $200K, but I couldn't ever substantiate the full amount so I'm not sure. We're talking about efforts over a 25-year span, so memories fade I suppose. But suffice it to say that those folks really put their money where their mouths were, both in volunteer time...and in cash. As much as the WiDNR, we really do have them to thank for the population we enjoy today.
I can imagine the push-back they got though, as I saw that firsthand...more times that I could count. A search of the forum here from that time will give you a sampling of what I'm talking about.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| anyone know where I can get a16" black hair jig? congrats to the angler! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | Hair jigs are light, probably 16oz. They take patience to work at a snails pace and have 0 action but for some reason smallmouth love them.
Edited by ToddM 5/28/2017 12:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 322
| 60 3/4".....i wouldnt even measure that minnow. Here is a 64" out of Green Bay. I hope you enjoy the read i know I did.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2013/07/wisconsin-a...
Edited by muskymandan 5/28/2017 8:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | |
|
| |
|
Posts: 322
| I didnt have to research the 64" they dont exist in the real world. They only exist in creative camera angles. I just thought it was comical. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yeah, that's probably one fish that was just *slightly* smaller than the stated length.
Odd thing is--there were (reportedly) a bunch of people all standing there when the fish was measured. And no one said... "HUH? How long do you think it is?!?" Have we really gone that far downhill in this country that people don't even know how to use a tape measure?
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
Location: Florida | Awesome muskie! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 759
Location: Ames, Iowa | That is a gorgeous, healthy looking fish. Typical that the walleye or the bass guys catch em like that. I think I need to downsize. |
|
| |
