|
|
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Has a new World Record Muskie been caught? A double Holy Grail (new record and first over 70 pounds)?? Well, even though such a fish was supposedly caught on the 18th of September, 2023, (which would also be a record of such news being kept quiet), no one seems to know much about it. However, according to the IGFA website, said fish, caught by a Mr. Craig Olund, from Lac Suel Lake, Ontario, is now IGFA's "Pending" World Record All-Tackle Muskellunge. Details on the IGFA website (you have to be a member to access) say that the fish was 56.5 inches long with a 31.5 inch girth. There is no photo available for viewing.
In checking around, rumors say the following: "girth was 30.5 inches"; "fish was caught on a $100 spinning rod/reel"; "fish was caught in an obsecure back bay". I'm sure much more will come forth shortly.
At any rate, "IF" such a fish has been caught, until more details and photographs are made public, there are several questions that present themselves:
1) Lac Suel is a "Catch and Release ONLY" lake for Muskellunge/Masquinongy, requiring immediate return to the lake when caught. If that is the case, how could they comply with all IGFA rules, i.e. fish must be weighed "on land" with a certified scale, etc.?
2) Are there photo's indicating true size of the fish? (rules require many different photos be provided).
3) Since no "corpus delecti" is available, how can it be determined that nothing (including water) was added to the fish before weighing? (NOTE: I am not trying to impugn the integrity of anyone, but rather just asking the logical questions).
I'm sure other questions will be forth coming as well.
So, should IGFA accept this catch, I suspect the Muskie World will be in an uproar! Some will be happy to finally(?) put all the BS and bogus records of the past 30 years to rest(?), including the "current" IGFA record, and others will NEVER accept it.
NOTE: Using the "Standard" formula (L X G X G/800) for estimating weight as used by IGFA and 31.5 inches as the girth, the weight calculates to just over 70 pounds. Using my "Modified Crawford" formula (developed for use on muskies over 50 pounds (L X G/25 -8) the estimated weight is 63.19 and at 30.5 girth the estimated weight is 60.93.
Stay tuned.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/1/2023 11:33 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1217
| If there is zero bag limit on the Lake and he kept it well isn't that a poached fish? How can poached fish be a world record?
Sure it's nice to know that there are record fish swimming in select waters. Could be a can of worms for the fish and game.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | chuckski: "IF" the angler did keep the fish, it would not (should not) be considered for record as it would have been a violation of the law.
As far as knowing that "there are record fish swimming in select waters", this may or may not be the case. Realize that the last verified muskie to weigh over 60 pounds (61-4) was caught in 2000 from Georgian Bay by Martin Williamson! That's 24 years with only one just over 60, let alone 70!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/1/2023 12:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 519
Location: WI | Getting some popcorn ready for when that photo is released to the internet. | |
| | |
| Larry Ramsell - 12/1/2023 11:53 AM
chuckski: "IF" the angler did keep the fish, it would not (should not) be considered for record as it would have been a violation of the law.
As far as knowing that "there are record fish swimming in select waters", this may or may not be the case. Realize that the last verified muskie to weigh over 60 pounds (61-4) was caught in 2000 from Georgian Bay by Martin Williamson! That's 24 years with only one just over 60, let alone 70!!
I know it was released, so no way of knowing but wondering Larry what you thought about the Dale McNair fish possibly weighing more than 60. Awful big fish and have always felt that if the pics were taken with a more average sized guy holding it, would have looked even bigger. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | With regards to keeping a fish on Lac Seul, if it was caught by a rights-based angler (ie indigenous angler, I'm not sure and doubtful Metis have harvesting rights there - unlikely), then the regulations for regulated anglers do not apply, especially considering the regulations for muskies are not conservation related (ie like they would be for sturgeon, for example). So from a legal catch point of view, could be legally harvested if an indigenous angler. So this would meet the "sporting laws and customs" I believe of IGFA - if caught on rod and reel etc as per the other IGFA rules.
Note the rights are consumptive rights. For example shooting trophy bucks for their racks and selling them would not be considered consumptive given the harvest is for food or ceremony in the historical sense. Not sure how that would translate here, but if if it were the case a world record, I doubt would be an issue or be made an issue.
Now if not taken by indigenous angler, then if taken in boat, handled excessively, etc, then would not follow the "sporting laws and customs," as currently you really shouldn't be holding and retaining fish for more than momentarily, even for photos really, although common practise and the COs won't ding you for it (except out of season where they might and should).
If the fish is that big, and I note on the IGFA site, then I for one hope it is the new record and congrats to Mr. Olund on the record and extra congrats for being low key about it.
Lac Seul is the lake where the stats lend towards the potential for a world record for sure.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/1/2023 2:43 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North of 8: While off subject, I think the McNair fish was a giant, but I cannot say it was over 60. Anglers and Guides with far more experience with BIG fish than I have said that they didn't believe it was over 60. Since I was in McNairs home right after he caught the fish and he wouldn't show me all of the photo's taken, I have to be suspect.
Oracle: Even if the fish was taken by an indeginous angler legally which I have no problem with, I would hope the IGFA would deny the fish as a record due to the fact that all other non-native anglers could not compete on a level playing field; so to speak.
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 12/1/2023 3:46 PM
Oracle: Even if the fish was taken by an indeginous angler legally which I have no problem with, I would hope the IGFA would deny the fish as a record due to the fact that all other non-native anglers could not compete on a level playing field; so to speak.
I guess speculating at this point. I guess we are fixing to find out what's what at some point.
Anyway this turns out, if it is a 72 pounder that is a super special fish.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/1/2023 9:59 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2281
Location: Chisholm, MN | Larry Ramsell - 12/1/2023 3:46 PM
North of 8: While off subject, I think the McNair fish was a giant, but I cannot say it was over 60. Anglers and Guides with far more experience with BIG fish than I have said that they didn't believe it was over 60. Since I was in McNairs home right after he caught the fish and he wouldn't show me all of the photo's taken, I have to be suspect.
Oracle: Even if the fish was taken by an indeginous angler legally which I have no problem with, I would hope the IGFA would deny the fish as a record due to the fact that all other non-native anglers could not compete on a level playing field; so to speak.
Legal is legal. If a youth hunter shot a world record white tail before any adults could hunt, it would still be the record. | |
| | |
| Kirby Budrow - 12/2/2023 10:05 AM
Larry Ramsell - 12/1/2023 3:46 PM
North of 8: While off subject, I think the McNair fish was a giant, but I cannot say it was over 60. Anglers and Guides with far more experience with BIG fish than I have said that they didn't believe it was over 60. Since I was in McNairs home right after he caught the fish and he wouldn't show me all of the photo's taken, I have to be suspect.
Oracle: Even if the fish was taken by an indeginous angler legally which I have no problem with, I would hope the IGFA would deny the fish as a record due to the fact that all other non-native anglers could not compete on a level playing field; so to speak.
Legal is legal. If a youth hunter shot a world record white tail before any adults could hunt, it would still be the record.
I agree, as long as the fish was caught with rod and reel, etc. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Really comes down to the laws/regs followed or not.
If the IGFA fishing rules were followed, which in all likehood they were given the status of the application, then the next possible disqualifier would be:
"4. When a catch violates laws or regulations governing the species or the waters where it was caught."
Again, speculating and completely hypothetical, indigenous would not be violating laws, and the regulations for licensed anglers don't apply to them. It is not that they are unregulated, but for the purposes of the question of keeping a musky where it is regulated where possession is zero (like Lac Seul), they would be able to harvest for food. This is qualified by the fact that non-aboriginal people would not be able to assist them to exercise treaty harvesting rights (I know for example in Sask you can get a permit to do so, don't know about Ontario). At this point don't know if the fellow is indigenous or not or some of other way this all transpired legally, just sort of one way that I can think of that a musky could be weighed- maybe there is another (released and died later, picked up by OMNR?) Again, hope we find out sooner than later.
I do hope it gets on the books if it is the heaviest musky in the world and hopefully minimal controversy, but as Larry said, probably will be controversy no matter what the circumstances.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/2/2023 12:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 612
| Having caught a number of esox between 20 to 28 lbs All I know is that I can't imagine such a fish. Even my large Clam net would it fit in the net. I've had fish on that #*^@ near wore my hands and arms out all cramped up from reeling in a close to 30 lber and I'm a big guy. Now take that fish and multiple t by ~2.5 WOW what a fish. And if it were caught by 1st Nation man then the record should be absolutely qualified. The Law stands and the man doesn't sound like he did anything illegal or poaching?. | |
| | |
Posts: 612
| Having caught a number of esox between 20 to 28 lbs All I know is that I can't imagine such a fish. Even my large Clam net would it fit in the net. I've had fish on that darn near wore my hands and arms out all cramped up from reeling in a close to 30 lber and I'm a big guy. Now take that fish and multiple t by ~2.5 WOW what a fish. And if it were caught by 1st Nation man then the record should be absolutely qualified. The Law stands and the man doesn't sound like he did anything illegal or poaching?. | |
| | |
Posts: 612
| Having caught a number of esox between 20 to 28 lbs All I know is that I can't imagine such a fish. Even my large Clam net would it fit in the net. I've had fish on that darn near wore my hands and arms out all cramped up from reeling in a close to 30 lber and I'm a big guy. Now take that fish and multiple t by ~2.5 WOW what a fish. And if it were caught by 1st Nation man then the record should be absolutely qualified. The Law stands and the man doesn't sound like he did anything illegal or poaching?. | |
| | |
Posts: 576
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | Well, here we go. The season is pretty much a rap for most, and people are already bored. Let's not talk world records and big fish until they are documented and verified. Stirring the pot on what many consider a "hot topic"/controversial topic just feeds to the fire, which is what some people must get off on doing. Does one exist out there? No, multiple probably do. All from the same body of water? No, probably multiple different bodies of water. Have fish over 55lbs been caught recently? Multiple, but most are never talked about because of so much jealousy that people have displayed by negative comments in the past. Have 60lb fish been caught recently? Probably...see explanation of 55lb fish. Have 65lb fish been caught recently? Who knows and who cares. Has a 70lb+ fish been caught recently? Until it has been verified, let's not worry about it, nor speculate about it. Enjoy the off-season. Start getting your gear ready for the 2024 season, trips planned, and dream about that 70lber in your net. Let the speculations, unverified information, stop and enjoy the winter break. | |
| | |
Posts: 2281
Location: Chisholm, MN | C_Nelson - 12/3/2023 6:46 AM
Well, here we go. The season is pretty much a rap for most, and people are already bored. Let's not talk world records and big fish until they are documented and verified. Stirring the pot on what many consider a "hot topic"/controversial topic just feeds to the fire, which is what some people must get off on doing. Does one exist out there? No, multiple probably do. All from the same body of water? No, probably multiple different bodies of water. Have fish over 55lbs been caught recently? Multiple, but most are never talked about because of so much jealousy that people have displayed by negative comments in the past. Have 60lb fish been caught recently? Probably...see explanation of 55lb fish. Have 65lb fish been caught recently? Who knows and who cares. Has a 70lb+ fish been caught recently? Until it has been verified, let's not worry about it, nor speculate about it. Enjoy the off-season. Start getting your gear ready for the 2024 season, trips planned, and dream about that 70lber in your net. Let the speculations, unverified information, stop and enjoy the winter break.
Yes sir! We'll all just listen to you! | |
| | |
Posts: 540
Location: deephaven mn | I have heard stories of 60+ inch fish... and stories of 60+ lb fish. 70 pounds is one hell of a story. I hope its true.
If is true and wasn't released it dosn't take away from the fact it that big. legal record or not. If it's not true it's just another story and depending on how it's told I'd like to hear it
| |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Downers Grove, IL | Haha, exactly, thanks for setting us straight C Nelson! | |
| | |
Posts: 2
| This is it. Picture does no justice | |
| | |
Posts: 2
| This is it.
Attachments
----------------
 IMG_6701(1).jpg (186KB - 82 downloads)
| |
| | |
| The fish in that picture is no where near a 31.5” girth IMO. Very nice fish though and congratulations to the anglers involved.
Edited by Baby Mallard 12/3/2023 4:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2281
Location: Chisholm, MN | Yup, it was too good to be true | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I would reserve judgment on size of fish in that pic- when I hold them they look massive, when my large buddy does, quite the opposite.
Looks like a fish that was caught with spinning gear and not doing well.
If all the numbers are correct, I really hope it was an indigenous angler. The alternative is not good.
Larry, I do notice in the line class and tippet records muskies that were of sizes that were in the "immediately release, no possession" category as well (ie undersize LOTW fish). In others words appears IGFA was lenient in that regard. Obviously weighed on the spot on shore and released. Those records of no interest really, but this one is, and I would put Lac Seul in a special category: the zero limit is deliberately put in place based on research, muskies are rare in Lac Seul to begin with and any fishing mortality was deemed not sustainable, and especially so for trophy fish. There should be no exceptions for excessive handling on Lac Seul just because a fish is particularly large.
The zero keep, immediate release regulation allows for massive muskies like this to exist and persist in Lac Seul
Looking forward to hearing more about the fish.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/3/2023 6:29 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1191
| After seeing the photo, my first thought was also that it was caught on light tackle. My guess: 6lb line on a walleye rig. Those are some bloody fins. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | Look at some of the largest caught on mille lacs ... sorry. That fish is not 15+ lbs heavier.... | |
| | |
Posts: 1973
| Looks bigger than Louis Spray’s fish to me, I say we go with it!!!  | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have sent a couple of "comparison" photos to Mr. Worrall to add to this post, which he will do from deer camp as time allows. Take a look and I'll provide some details later. | |
| | |
Posts: 32806
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 2
(output_image1701702867950(2).jpg)
Attachments
----------------
IMG_1220(1).jpg (23KB - 29 downloads)
output_image1701702867950(2).jpg (34KB - 31 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1316
Location: Lebanon,Mo | I don't see this as anywhere close to the 57x33 Dale McNair caught on the Larry in '08,but who knows. Maybe someone could load that photo for reference | |
| | |
Posts: 113
| Kirby Budrow - 12/2/2023 10:05 AM
Legal is legal. If a youth hunter shot a world record white tail before any adults could hunt, it would still be the record.
That's actually not legal though. Any B & C or P & Y buck taken outside of the general legal hunting season is not acceptable for these record books. Any record buck taken with a crossbow is also not considered for the Pope & Young record book, as they only permit bucks taken via vertical bows.
In other words, if you are a youth during a special youth season, that is not considered the general season that anyone can participate in. Fair chase for everyone is how they look at that.
I just assume the same be considered for a world record muskie.
Edited by gimruis 12/4/2023 12:04 PM
| |
| | |
| Angling Oracle - 12/3/2023 5:57 PM
I would reserve judgment on size of fish in that pic- when I hold them they look massive, when my large buddy does, quite the opposite.
Looks like a fish that was caught with spinning gear and not doing well.
If all the numbers are correct, I really hope it was an indigenous angler. The alternative is not good.
Larry, I do notice in the line class and tippet records muskies that were of sizes that were in the "immediately release, no possession" category as well (ie undersize LOTW fish). In others words appears IGFA was lenient in that regard. Obviously weighed on the spot on shore and released. Those records of no interest really, but this one is, and I would put Lac Seul in a special category: the zero limit is deliberately put in place based on research, muskies are rare in Lac Seul to begin with and any fishing mortality was deemed not sustainable, and especially so for trophy fish. There should be no exceptions for excessive handling on Lac Seul just because a fish is particularly large.
The zero keep, immediate release regulation allows for massive muskies like this to exist and persist in Lac Seul
Looking forward to hearing more about the fish.
Yes, without some point of reference, hard to judge. Saw some pics of my nephew and his wife on St. Clair this summer. Both are holding upper 40s fish. However, he is 6'2" with big hands. She is maybe 5'6" with small hands. Almost identical fish look much bigger when she is holding it. | |
| | |
Posts: 1136
Location: NorthCentral WI | 1st Pic > McNair's 57 x 33
2nd Pic > 55 x ? caught in 2009. The angler in this one must've been a short guy because in my opinion, it's one of the most impressive photos of all time.
Edited by MartinTD 12/4/2023 12:38 PM
Attachments
----------------
dalemacnair3.jpg (38KB - 51 downloads)
TorchMuskie.jpg (51KB - 98 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | gimruis - 12/4/2023 12:00 PM
Kirby Budrow - 12/2/2023 10:05 AM
Legal is legal. If a youth hunter shot a world record white tail before any adults could hunt, it would still be the record.
That's actually not legal though. Any B & C or P & Y buck taken outside of the general legal hunting season is not acceptable for these record books. Any record buck taken with a crossbow is also not considered for the Pope & Young record book, as they only permit bucks taken via vertical bows.
In other words, if you are a youth during a special youth season, that is not considered the general season that anyone can participate in. Fair chase for everyone is how they look at that.
I just assume the same be considered for a world record muskie.
I recommend you go and look at what's permitted with B & C / P & Y more closely. Yes, fair chase, but definitely not excluding legal other ways of taking animals outside of the traditional seasons:
https://www.boone-crockett.org/policies-bc-big-game-records-program
As far as "fairness / equality of access," we here in North America sort of used to just pulling up to a boat launch and going fishing - it is not like that in a lot of the world, particularly in Europe - lots of world records in the IGFA taken in exclusive type access waters.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/4/2023 1:39 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 168
| missourimuskyhunter - 12/4/2023 12:53 PM
I don't see this as anywhere close to the 57x33 Dale McNair caught on the Larry in '08,but who knows. Maybe someone could load that photo for reference
Pics can be found here. Nothing has come close to that fish IMO.
https://www.musky.ca/worldrecordcatchreleasemuskiedalemacnair.htm
Edited by BillM 12/4/2023 2:56 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | [QUOTE/]BillM - 12/4/2023 2:54 PM
https://www.musky.ca/worldrecordcatchreleasemuskiedalemacnair.htm[/Q...
Definitely takes the cake in the girth department.
The Veiders musky photo gallery does show how the camera angle can really change size perception.
https://www.in-fisherman.com/editorial/worldclass-mega-muskie-from-l...
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/4/2023 4:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | McNairs fish certainly girthy in the middle, but small head and front and rear sections on the thin side.
Now that I'm off the nasty, cold water (yes C Nelson, many of us are still at it for awhile yet), I'll get on to the details of my two comparison photo's.
Photo one is a giant 58.5 (14.5 inch head) caught by my good friend Klaus Trieb shortly after recovering from a 9 week COVID coma.
Photo two is a 57 inch giant caught by good friend Will Wright. Will is 6-5 and weighs around 300
Some notable facts are both were August caught fish, both from the St. Lawrence River, and most importantly, NEITHER fish weighed 50 pounds let alone over 70!
The unidentified fish in the other post with pics was a former Michigan State record and weighed around 50 pounds.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/4/2023 9:19 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8729
| Bad camera angles can only diminish the size of the fish so much. When you look at the amount of back end hanging over and the size of the head on some of those fish the length becomes apparent. Girth? Well... girths are often overstated. McNair's fish looks like it ate a football. I think it's safe to say that a true 70# fish would have a girth that carried through all the way from the shoulders to the tail, and the length to go with it. Big guys make big fish look smaller and vice-versa, but a fish of that caliber would be obvious no matter who was holding it and how bad the pictures were.
Simply put: Huge fish! 72#? Nope. Next...
Edited by esoxaddict 12/4/2023 10:44 PM
| |
| | |
| Back in the early 1960s, when catch and keep was the standard, my uncle took me to a sports shop in Eagle River. They had a variety of skin mounts on the wall but the one that was eye catching was a musky that was upper 40s in length and weight according to the plaque. That fish weighed more than a pound per inch and looked every bit of it.
The owner of the shop said he had never seen one quite like it. This was at a time where every sport shop had a glass topped freezer, displaying the catch of the week and guys competed for prizes. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I would say that I would prefer the world record was caught with sort of the pedigree of having all the ducks in row and fishing intentionally for musky - eg. like what Veiders did with his 59.5 - so by deduction I am leaning a certain way with this one.
However sort of perplexed that if the fish is not of the dimensions and weight claimed that IGFA would even put up as pending given the application requirements:
https://igfa.org/world-record-application/
The form is pretty straightforward. Looks to me though would take a bit of a conspiracy to apply with a fish that was bogus - I suppose could happen (Larry, I'm sure you would know), but if any initial doubts would be silly (read: stupid) of IGFA to put as pending then have to retract on the basis of lack of proper vetting. I notice most of the world records (recent line class ones) that were pending and rejected are based on the line being of a strength generally higher than claimed (ie manufacturers strength), not where there was something nefarious done by angler.
Although Ontario may modify the "immediate release" rule in future to appease the CPR tournament crowd, it is in place, and the intent of the rule whether modified in future or not is still about the welfare of the fish - ensuring it is released in good health and survives. This is especially true of muskies and large muskies in Lac Seul. In fact, I don't think there is a fishery anywhere else in Ontario and for a species where this rule is more relevant in terms of conserving a specific segment of the population. The current rule with the word "immediately" has no ambuguity - immediately means now, not after going to shore and weighing, measuring, taking photos. That fish in my view (a fisheries biologist view) if even alive, needed to be released immediately. In fact, not even removed from water if possible. The water was coldish and thus well oxygenated then, yes, but not that cold - I was at a cabin on Abram Lake the following week (across from Winoga lodge), and we were swimming off the dock. Abram is a clear lake trout lake, not some back bay of Lac Seul where presumably a lot warmer.
The two results that would be acceptable outcomes, in my view, is that the fish was not the weight claimed and was released and survived, or was the weight and size claimed and caught by an indigenous angler legally. I don't think there are any other good outcomes; the former outcome being good for the fish and fishery, the latter being good for the angler and validating this management tool for trophy fish.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/5/2023 10:45 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have sent two more comp pics to Mr. Worrall to post when he can. Details later. Anyone care to estimate sizes?
Attachments
----------------
IMG_2852[7406].jpg (133KB - 36 downloads)
IMG_5991[7404].jpg (98KB - 48 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Top looks slightly longer and skinnier to me. I'd guess 57 x 25 for top and 55 x 27 on bottom. | |
| | |
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Pretty absurd to think the Lac Seul fish is 72 lbs. The stated measurements would have to be correct AND the weight would have to overshoot the best available formula by nearly 15%. There's no good reason to believe either of those is true. His hand is in the picture for some visual reference - nothing about that girth appears even remotely close to 31.5.
The Sprengeler fish from Mille Lacs measured 57.75 x 29 and weighed just under 56 lbs. Somehow this fish, which is shorter, is supposed to have significantly wider girth and weigh 16 lbs more.
Edited by nar160 12/6/2023 12:44 PM
Attachments
----------------
sprengeler2.jpg (143KB - 98 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ Don't have many spotted fish here, but the first fish looks a bit smaller/younger based on the more defined spotting overall and in particular on the operculum. In both cases I would say sub-50 given relatively easily supported, with the bottom fish perhaps a few inches longer and an older fish given the more mature looking head and faded spotting on operculum. I'm basing this entirely on sort of how LOTW / Wpg River fish sort of fade out as they mature.
Pretty tough to judge if can't see the supported hands, where the fish is in relation to those holding it. That third dimension can make a lot of difference in size impression.
(fyi SCTV bit - not a musky clip): https://youtu.be/1R3G_beQccA?si=aPOm0NRt2kqolkun&t=43
What a 72 lber looks like, we'll have to see. The photo of the Lac Seul fish doesn't look like a massive fish, but it's one photo. Hard to believe, but... The hand on the peduncle does give the impression of a very large fish.
We will see what IGFA does. Not sure what to make of them. Interesting reading this:
https://www.musky.ca/wrma/IGFA_Decision.pdf
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/6/2023 5:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8729
| Larry, I'm going to say 53" x 25.5" on the first fish and 54.5" x 27" on the second. 42.5# and 46# w/o using the formulas | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ok, three brave souls taking a shot at estimating my second set of comparisons. I think you will all be surprised! Fish number one was caught by me just last night, December 5, 2023 (yes C Nelson I'm still at it). It was only 47 inches long! No weight no girth. The second fish is also a December fish I caught two days before Christmas December 2022. It was a fat 51.5 that was in the low 40 pound range. No girth. Surprise!!
Thanks to nar 160 for posting the Spengler fish. It is likely the best true comparison to the Lac Suel fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Wow, that is very surprising indeed. To me the head on that first fish looks massive and the way it stretches across you guys it looks much longer than it is. I can believe the second fish, but I still think it looks bigger than it is! | |
| | |
Posts: 612
| sworrall - 12/4/2023 11:01 AM
2
Thanks Steve nice pics and WOW | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 12/6/2023 9:26 PM
Ok, three brave souls taking a shot at estimating my second set of comparisons. I think you will all be surprised! Fish number one was caught by me just last night, December 5, 2023 (yes C Nelson I'm still at it). It was only 47 inches long! No weight no girth. The second fish is also a December fish I caught two days before Christmas December 2022. It was a fat 51.5 that was in the low 40 pound range. No girth. Surprise!!
Thanks to nar 160 for posting the Spengler fish. It is likely the best true comparison to the Lac Suel fish.
Congrats - both beautiful immaculate specimens. Not super surprised at those lengths, but really surprised your sidekick holding a great smile and not grimacing supporting the bulk of a 40+ pounder :). Definitely a fish holding pro. Good luck rest of the way! | |
| | |
Posts: 4
| I'm going to bite here. I'm wondering why the fish that Rich Clarke guided a client to doesn't get talked about more often. The fish was reported at 60X29 and passes every eye test for me. Was there ever something that discredited the measurements with this one? Larry, maybe you could shed some light on it.
I put together an side by side comparison a few years ago that I thought was fairly emphatic. The Clark fish above was reportedly 60X29, the fish below was a verified kept 59 incher at 49 pounds. The two fish are very similar genetically, so they're kinda fun to compare. If the Clarke fish is actually an inch longer than the one below, I don't think it's a stretch to say that at the very least it was pushing sixty pounds.
I'm not sure how to attach pics. If the link below doesn't work, maybe someone can direct me how to do it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OWuLT04Fc4OIvJW6F-IzgurdCKaIpT7/vi... | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Hey Garrett, long time. Sorry, my light is out re the size of the Clark fish. Certainly a fattie.
If indeed it was as claimed it would have been in the 60 pounds ball park.
My Modified Crawford formula would have it weighing about 61.6 pounds. | |
| | |
Posts: 1217
| Speaking of heavy fish Steve Fuller of Bemidji MN. caught and kept a 49 pound fish with the measurements of (52 X 28 3/4)
on Sept 10 1990. The story of this fish is in the Feb/March 1991 Musky Hunter Mag. Only said it was caught in Ontario, it is to be believed to be a Lac Seul fish.
| |
| | |
| Looking at all the great pictures of really huge muskies, had a thought: What about AI?
Recently read an article about how AI can produce such authentic looking photos, without the source "document" you cannot tell it is not real. Some of the examples look like real people but they were purely imaginary from an AI program. Going back to the early part of the 20th century photographs were manipulated, often as a joke on a post card, etc. But, with the incredible technology already available and much more to come will photographs really have any value? If you have someone willing to lie and get a cooperating "witness"? | |
| | |
Posts: 1212
Location: E. Tenn | North of 8 - 12/7/2023 9:46 PM
Looking at all the great pictures of really huge muskies, had a thought: What about AI?
Recently read an article about how AI can produce such authentic looking photos, without the source "document" you cannot tell it is not real. Some of the examples look like real people but they were purely imaginary from an AI program. Going back to the early part of the 20th century photographs were manipulated, often as a joke on a post card, etc. But, with the incredible technology already available and much more to come will photographs really have any value? If you have someone willing to lie and get a cooperating "witness"?
Nothing would surprise me anymore.. | |
| | |
Posts: 561
| The 70 pounder looks like a 45 pounder IMO , that or its a terrible terrible photo . | |
| | |
Posts: 168
| They obviously used emotion to weigh that fish and not a scale. Ridiculous.
Edited by BillM 12/10/2023 12:15 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1217
| Out in the boat and in the weather and the welfare of the fish it can be at times hard to get a good photo. But if you kept it?
In the old days shoot a whole roll of film, and with digital? World Record? you could take hundreds unless your hiding something. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Well, we seem to be at an impasse as no further information has been forthcoming, so I guess we will just have to wait and see what IGFA does. I suspect that if they don't accept the fish, based on my experiences with them as an IGFA Representative for 16 years, the information will simply disappear from their website and no further information will be forthcoming. It would be nice though, since this would be a such monumental occurrence in the muskie world of literally hundreds of thousands of muskellunge anglers worldwide who are affected, if IGFA did explain why it wasn't accepted. That they posted it as "pending" on their website was curious and if not accepted I believe they owe us an explanation. In addition, if they do accept the fish, it would be nice if they made all the details and additional photos available for all to see.
This morning I checked with the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to see if this fish had been submitted to them. It has not. They did receive a call concerning entering the fish, but the caller, who said he wasn't the catcher and was a bit sketchy with information, was inquiring for said person. The Hall director told him that Lac Suel was a catch and release only lake and so the weight, which the caller was also sketchy about, wouldn't matter and that the fish could only be considered in the release category.
As for the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record program (modernmuskierecords.org), as Chairman of the program, I can assure you that there has been no inquiry for said fish.
So folks, it appears that we will have to be patient and see what develops. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 12/11/2023 11:59 AM
That they posted it as "pending" on their website was curious and if not accepted I believe they owe us an explanation. In addition, if they do accept the fish, it would be nice if they made all the details and additional photos available for all to see.
This morning I checked with the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to see if this fish had been submitted to them. It has not. They did receive a call concerning entering the fish, but the caller, who said he wasn't the catcher and was a bit sketchy with information, was inquiring for said person. The Hall director told him that Lac Suel was a catch and release only lake and so the weight, which the caller was also sketchy about, wouldn't matter and that the fish could only be considered in the release category.
As for the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record program (modernmuskierecords.org), as Chairman of the program, I can assure you that there has been no inquiry for said fish.
So folks, it appears that we will have to be patient and see what develops.
Thanks Larry, for looking into some more. Glad the director there sort of set the situation straight there. I undertand that the Jacobson Lac Seul musky was pending with them as well, and disqualified either by iffy measuring or assisted catch (that latter of which I tend to agree with Jacobson in the fish technically landed). The reality is that Jacobson abided by the Lac Seul release rules as they were intended, whereas this latest fish certainly in my view has not (contingent on not a rights-based angler).
The InFisherman narrator even uses the word "promptly"
https://youtu.be/LPSChkufrdg?si=R28grRgVYyJaqEqP&t=53
It's not like the IGFA can't just give a competent musky authority such as yourself, Gord Pyzer, the OMNR district fisheries manager a call. Or read this thread.
It's also not as though the IGFA doesn't have paid staff and funds to pay to get controversial records right (although pretty light on dishing out consulting fees considering they are in theory a world record authority):
https://igfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019-Financials.pdf
I get they are probably a billfish clique, but they better not get this wrong.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/12/2023 10:44 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Here is the abstract from "Assessing Sustainability of Trophy Muskellunge Fisheries" by Casselman et al. 1996
It is the rationale why the catch and release rule was put in place in Lac Seul - the recruitment of new fish to replenish fish lost to fish being kept or bad handling is not sustainable in Lac Seul. We don't have stocking (nor should we). Lac Seul has a very low density of muskies, ergo it is super vulnerable to a rapid decline in large fish over time due to fishing mortality and hence a immediate release, zero keep rule was implemented. Every fish counts, thus someone bungling around weighing a fish that should be immediately released is frankly illegal (if done by a non-rights based angler). I guess we will see what this Lac Seul fish was...
"Sustainability of trophy muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) fisheries was examined from data collected from more than 78,000 muskellunge caught by Muskies Inc. members over a 24 year period from 1971 to 1994 as well as from more than 2,400
trophy muskellunge caught over a 16 year period from 1979 to 1994. The latter is a subset of fish mounted by taxidermists who have submitted cleithral bones to the Cleithrum Project. Over the past two decades, voluntary catch-and-release as practised by organized muskellunge anglers has helped maintain the average length, weight, and age of trophy muskellunge. A simple predictive relationship makes it
possible to estimate mortality of trophy muskellunge populations by using observed maximum age. Average annual mortality rate of trophy muskellunge populations
ranged from 16% to 26%; this corresponds to a maximum age of 26 to 16 years. Cleithrum Project data indicated that over the past 16 years, average maximum age of trophy muskellunge may have decreased by two years (23 to 21), associated with
an increase in annual mortality rate from 18% to 20%. This 2% increase in the annual mortality rate of trophy muskellunge in the 21 to 23 age range is comparable to a decrease in recruitment of about 70%. To compensate for a 2% increase in mortality of the largest, oldest trophy muskellunge in the 25 to 30 age range, recruitment would need to be doubled. Harvest reduction and catch-and-release precedures, which reduce mortality, are easier and more effective ways of sustaining or increasing the numbers of trophy muskellunge than trying to supplement recruitment through stocking. Excessively large year classes are required to produce very old, large trophy muskellunge, and if the quality of muskellunge fisheries is to be maintained in the presence of increased angling pressure, handling mortality associated with catch-and release must be minimized."
I'm putting this up so perhaps someone from IGFA can peruse if they are wondering about what the intent of the regs are in this situation.
"...handling mortality associated with catch-and release must be minimized."
In the case of Lac Seul, that means immediate release...
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/12/2023 12:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 307
| IMO this fish is not a 70,nor even a 60 lber.
AO while the 'ratiionale' for the Lac Suel Catch/Release reg was as stated by Casselman in 1996,the 'science' at the time was not as detailed or clear and certainly not as well summarized.In the immediate background was the Wabigoon fiasco which had demonstrated pretty clearly at that point how quickly a fishery could be devastated.A bunch of us 'oldies' early on realized what was happening and acted to try prevent a repeat of 'Wabigoon'.Many involved at that point were US citizens.Many wrote letters and/or met with MNR people to encourage and assist in implementation of the new
regs.Many of the same people assisted in 'tagging' and other action/research to support implementation.This included a number of US experts such as Larry but also US fish biologists such as Bob Strand,Norm Haukos and others.There was criticism at the time that supportive info was 'rushed' and lacking but.IMO,really not so and certainly was necessary and justified.
Just pointing out that what seems so clear and obvious now,wasn't then.A big thanks to Larry and all involved for getting it done! | |
| | |
| When the term 'immediate release' is used, is that enforced literally? Sometimes it helps to hold a fish in the water, upright until it recovers for example. A few years back, I caught a low 40 fish after dark. My son netted it and I got the hooks out quickly but before I could take it out of the net, it lunged and slammed against the side of the boat. Basically knocked itself out. I got it out of the net, held it upright and my son ran the trolling motor, with the fish facing forward. After about 100 yards, the fish revived and swam away very strong. That was a technique a veteran fisheries tech had told me about. They used it sometimes when netting fish for surveys. Had I just released it, I think it would have just sunk. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | dickP - 12/13/2023 7:22 AM
IMO this fish is not a 70,nor even a 60 lber.
AO while the 'ratiionale' for the Lac Suel Catch/Release reg was as stated by Casselman in 1996,the 'science' at the time was not as detailed or clear and certainly not as well summarized.In the immediate background was the Wabigoon fiasco which had demonstrated pretty clearly at that point how quickly a fishery could be devastated.A bunch of us 'oldies' early on realized what was happening and acted to try prevent a repeat of 'Wabigoon'.Many involved at that point were US citizens.Many wrote letters and/or met with MNR people to encourage and assist in implementation of the new
regs.Many of the same people assisted in 'tagging' and other action/research to support implementation.This included a number of US experts such as Larry but also US fish biologists such as Bob Strand,Norm Haukos and others.There was criticism at the time that supportive info was 'rushed' and lacking but.IMO,really not so and certainly was necessary and justified.
Just pointing out that what seems so clear and obvious now,wasn't then.A big thanks to Larry and all involved for getting it done!
Good stuff. Thanks for input on it, Dick, good to know some of the names behind it.
I'm sure you are probably are one of the ones that pioneered fishing Lac Seul post Wabigoon based on reading between the lines in some of the contemporaneous In-Fisherman musky articles that you contributed to. There is also a "next big musky" or something similar article that gives all the history of the rise and rapid fall of Wabigoon.
I'm not sure where I had seen the data or perhaps relayed in a podcast on Lac Seul, I believe it was sort of in that "worried" time period you are talking about where the catch rates of big fish started to decline fairly quickly once the word got out about Lac Seul. Reduction in CPUE was not necessarily related to mortality in Lac Seul, more likely avoidance by big fish (and I think this was also indicated by whoever was researching given most anglers were releasing them anyway), but nevertheless I believe the thinking was better to side on being precautionary since either way this implied a very small pool of big fish in Lac Seul to start with, and thus losing any would be detrimental to the fishery long term. Of course the rapid Wabigoon decline made being extra cautious a bit of a no-brainer.
Realistically studying big muskies is difficult to impossible given it is an animal that is so rare and elusive. Any data is typically going to be observational or anecdotal, and you are going to need to rely on amateur folks in the field doing the observing (ie anglers). Stats are generally going to take a bit of a back seat when you can't generate a dataset of a size where you can do statistically significant tests - hence why the Casselman et al paper is so compelling.
Don't know if you have heard Gord's podcast, but a bit of the Wabigoon and reg history there and he does mention the US-based concern being a factor as well in the changes:
https://www.theuglypike.ca/podcast-blog/uglypike-s56r5-hyzgz-r52y6-y...
Gord also makes a very valid point on who is killing the most muskies. We tend to sort take comfort in the fact that we personally release the majority of our muskies in a healthy condition - we don't really think about all the muskies caught by non-musky anglers that likely don't do so well. The OP by Larry suggest this Lac Seul musky may have been caught by a walleye angler - which would make the most sense of why are where we are with this fish, assuming the anecdotes have a basis in some fact.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/13/2023 12:55 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 12/13/2023 8:13 AM
When the term 'immediate release' is used, is that enforced literally? Sometimes it helps to hold a fish in the water, upright until it recovers for example. A few years back, I caught a low 40 fish after dark. My son netted it and I got the hooks out quickly but before I could take it out of the net, it lunged and slammed against the side of the boat. Basically knocked itself out. I got it out of the net, held it upright and my son ran the trolling motor, with the fish facing forward. After about 100 yards, the fish revived and swam away very strong. That was a technique a veteran fisheries tech had told me about. They used it sometimes when netting fish for surveys. Had I just released it, I think it would have just sunk.
Doesn't sound like you did anything wrong there and in fact doing the right thing. Note the intent of the reg is to release the fish healthy and unharmed, and so that was what you were trying to do. Taking a worn out musky to shore so you can weight it and measure it would be counterproductive to that intent. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Angling Oracle - 12/13/2023 12:34 PM
dickP - 12/13/2023 7:22 AM
IMO this fish is not a 70,nor even a 60 lber.
AO while the 'ratiionale' for the Lac Suel Catch/Release reg was as stated by Casselman in 1996,the 'science' at the time was not as detailed or clear and certainly not as well summarized.In the immediate background was the Wabigoon fiasco which had demonstrated pretty clearly at that point how quickly a fishery could be devastated.A bunch of us 'oldies' early on realized what was happening and acted to try prevent a repeat of 'Wabigoon'.Many involved at that point were US citizens.Many wrote letters and/or met with MNR people to encourage and assist in implementation of the new
regs.Many of the same people assisted in 'tagging' and other action/research to support implementation.This included a number of US experts such as Larry but also US fish biologists such as Bob Strand,Norm Haukos and others.There was criticism at the time that supportive info was 'rushed' and lacking but.IMO,really not so and certainly was necessary and justified.
Just pointing out that what seems so clear and obvious now,wasn't then.A big thanks to Larry and all involved for getting it done!
I'm not sure where I had seen the data or perhaps relayed in a podcast on Lac Seul, I believe it was sort of in that "worried" time period you are talking about where the catch rates of big fish started to decline fairly quickly once the word got out about Lac Seul. Reduction in CPUE was not necessarily related to mortality in Lac Seul, more likely avoidance by big fish (and I think this was also indicated by whoever was researching given most anglers were releasing them anyway ), but nevertheless I believe the thinking was better to side on being precautionary since either way this implied a very small pool of big fish in Lac Seul to start with, and thus losing any would be detrimental to the fishery long term. Of course the rapid Wabigoon decline made being extra cautious a bit of a no-brainer.
Further to - the study I recalled was the one by Paul MacMahon:
The Lac Seul Trophy Muskellunge Fishery
Abstract:
"In recent years, Lac Seul, in northwestern Ontario, has been the site of a fast growing trophy fishery for muskellunge (Esox masquinongy). Concern about the
sustainability-of this fishery prompted a catch-and-release regulation to protect the fishery while studies were initiated to investigate the status of the muskellunge population. Preliminary data indicates angler catch-per-unit-effort (CUE)
declined by more than 50 percent in a three year period. Compared to other trophy musky populations, the fish are fast growing with a high theoretical maximum length. There is a possibility that despite the catch-and-release regulation, the trophy fishery may not be sustainable at recent levels of angling effort."
An interesting read - preliminary report presented at the Managing Muskies in the '90s Workshop Proceedings - August 16-17, 1995.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/13/2023 4:55 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 72-2 UPDATE:
HALL OF FAME: A few developments in the past two days. Yesterday the Hall of Fame received an application for this fish as a line-class world record. It will be considered for the Release Divison; Power Trolling, 50# category. It cannot be the All-tackle record as that is slot is occupied by a 62 (1/4) inch muskie caught in 1997, by Bill Craig from the Ottawa River.
Obviously, no weight was noted. There were three photo's included; two very similar to the one on page 1 of this thread except the angler's heads were not cut off. Both were "slightly" different than the one posted and the fish did indeed look a bit larger. There was also a shot of the fish being released in the water beside the boat. Like the photo on page 1, it did not do the fish "justice". The length submitted was 57-inches "total length" (the IGFA measurement of 56.5 was a "fork length" measurement as required by IGFA). If one looks close at the photo on page 1, it is evident that there was very little "dip" from the tail tip to the fork; unusual in a fish that size, but not unreasonable.
In a phone discussion with the witness, the Hall learned that the fish had been weighed on a Boga Grip type scale and it was checked against a "meat scale" after the fact. (Does that make it "certified"?).
As an aside, I found it ironic that the angler Chris Olund, is from Sarona, Wisconsin, the same place Ted Haag, Louie Spray's fishing partner, resided.
IGFA: Yesterday also, a bit of info came forth from the IGFA after an email inquiry from an interested angler desiring same. He shared his response with me. The IGFA respondent stated that they had ..."received all the documentation necessary and the application is currently pending". He stated that ..."While I cannot speak on the status of the application until I receive a final decision from the review committee, one of the requirements for submitting a world record is that the fish must be weighed on land. The fish in question was weighed on the boat which is cause for a disqualification."!!
Hmmm, it would appear to me that he just put a nail in the coffin (so to speak) of this fish. There may be other rules that were not complied with, but nothing else was mentioned and may never be if the above disqualifies the fish in committee. The interested angler was advised that he would be notified of the official decision.
It is unclear whether or not if denied All-tackle record status, the fish would be considered in a line-class category based on length alone.
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I'm glad it was released, and perhaps in better condition than would have been the case if the scenario played out with walleye gear.
Given this was a very impressive fish, and may well have been the heaviest musky ever caught by angling, it is unfortunate that such a fish could not be celebrated for what it represents - a validation of the musky regulations put on Lac Seul. If only that scale had not been brought on board to begin with, then perhaps it would have been. The rule is there for a purpose, there is no exceptions for Junior's first musky, Bill's PB, or the potential next world record.
To provide some additional context, for those of you that haven't fished up by Sioux Lookout, it is a very unique area when it comes to regulations: there are sanctuary areas, permanent musky sanctuary lakes, and a no livewell rule for lakes around Sioux Lookout - ie if you want to keep a fish you have to put on ice, there is no upgrading. In other words conservation first, and the zero musky rule / immediate release has basically kept the musky population in as close to undisturbed size distribution as is possible on Lac Seul.
If my best musky fishing buddy did the same thing, I would feel exactly the same way.
As I said on other threads, I really like the zero keep rule as I believe it in the best interest of the naturally reproducing musky populations up here, and more specifically in the sympatric lake and river systems (coexisting with pike) which are typically where the biggest muskies reside. Huge muskies are few and far between, and we need to protect them to keep those genetics in the system as long as possible, and that means always releasing and in as healthy as possible condition.
* note correction - sympatric (I had allopatric). I have allopatric on the brain given there seems to be pike menacing some of the allopatric lakes to the SW closer to Dryden area given how many tigers are showing up. Yes, tigers look cool, but not good for the future of those lakes.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/20/2023 10:24 AM
| |
| | |
| The more I read about restrictions on handling from trophy waters and given the almost universal determination of musky folks to release all musky, is there really a purpose to having world record musky standards the in reality involve killing the musky? Maybe just call it a day, have some standards for catch and release records but nothing more?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1217
| We had some really good sized fish in our boat over the years on our 1 to two week vacation and I spend some time looking for a giant or a Ghost of a fish that may not even exist. If I don't catch such a fish maybe it's a good thing. Sure is fun. | |
| | |
Posts: 267
| I would say no way that fish is 70 pounds. | |
| | |
Posts: 74
Location: thunder bay | I guide up on lac seul and I seen more pictures of the fish then the one here. And it’s definitely a big fish. It was weighed on a scale in the boat which I was told was 71 pounds. The owner of the camp the guy was staying at which I’m friends with asked to see the scale knowing what they were saying about the size of the musky and weighed one of his workout weights a 45 pound and that’s what the scale said, so the scale was on. I don’t know I wasn’t in the boat or at the camp. That’s just some info that I was told. I’ll see if I can get some of the other pics for you guys. I definitely do know though it was a monster fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 72-2 UPDATE CONTINUED: Well, more information has surfaced, but not as quickly as I had first thought. Your faithful reporter has continued digging and has uncovered some additional new information regarding this fish both by inquiry and by me being contacted directly. Unfortunately, while I do have multiple new sources of information, none wishes to become involved directly. Although some of this new information is direct first person (at the resort at the time the fish was caught) and some is credible “hearsay” it all necessarily becomes “hearsay”. I thought long and hard about even posting this but if the fish is legitimate, it should stand any scrutiny. You will have to make up your own mind as to the validity of the information. I will comment where I feel it is appropriate:
Info #1: The girth was NOT measured, a requirement by IGFA (Note: as noted below in #4, the only measuring devices they had was a small bump board and a 50” tape stuck to the gunnel of the boat).
Info #2: They were told by multiple people not to post about the fish (Note: hopefully to minimize increased pressure on the lake!).
Info #3: The tape they used went to 50 inches and the rest was estimated (Note: IGFA requires use of “their” bump board to measure length).
Info #4: (Slightly different scenario than #3). They only had a small bump board (I’d guess a 24” walleye/bass size), but there was a 50” tape glued to the gunnel of the boat, so they pulled the fish alongside the boat, put their small bump board next to the tape and “eyeballed” length.
Info #5: The scale used was a $20.00 handheld scale (Note: moot point if the scale is certified within one year previous or after the fact by IGFA rule-not acceptable in the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program).
Info #6: One informant thought it …Interesting that they didn’t post the pictures of the fish hanging by the gills from the scale! (Note: since the catch and immediate release regulation is to protect the fish, especially trophy fish, it would be interesting to see how a Conservation Warden would rule on this. If a violation of “immediate release”, it would disqualify the fish as a “legal catch”, even for catch and release only categories).
A final thought: If there are no photos of the fish on the scale showing the fish and the scale weight, should we accept the say so of “interested” witnesses and angler for this important world record; one of the three most important fish records in fresh water? In fact, should an All-tackle world record designation ever be given to a released muskellunge where no weight re-verification or stomach content examination can be made? A fish that must surely be at the end of its life span…
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/1/2024 12:15 PM
Info #2: They were told by multiple people not to post about the fish (Note: hopefully to minimize increased pressure on the lake!).
Info #6: One informant thought it …Interesting that they didn’t post the pictures of the fish hanging by the gills from the scale! (Note: since the catch and immediate release regulation is to protect the fish, especially trophy fish, it would be interesting to see how a Conservation Warden would rule on this. If a violation of “immediate release”, it would disqualify the fish as a “legal catch”, even for catch and release only categories).
A final thought: If there are no photos of the fish on the scale showing the fish and the scale weight, should we accept the say so of “interested” witnesses and angler for this important world record; one of the three most important fish records in fresh water? In fact, should an All-tackle world record designation ever be given to a released muskellunge where no weight re-verification or stomach content examination can be made? A fish that must surely be at the end of its life span…
# 2 is reassuring.
I would suggest keeping mum is more the norm and there are many huge fish that are never revealed in the public domain.
#6 - musky anglers with a scale on Lac Seul is like having a rifle with you during deer muzzeloader season - not justifiable.
Your final thought - I don't think will be a WR based on those suppositions.
Life span... Differ with you on this, Larry. A big old fish not necessarily near kicking the bucket. In a lake I worked on we had lake whitefish that were in their 40s and 50s (we thought they were maybe 12 - they weren't huge, just old fish).
The science has changed on this. Fish do get a lot older than what historical type aging methods initially indicated and fish do not get reproductively senile (ie the old dry doe type scenario - which is also a myth). Fish size may pretty much max out in length but a fish may live for decades and only grow very slightly (putting most of the energetics into reproduction, not growth). This is one (of several) reasons why in Manitoba we have gone to the zero over rule for a wide range of fish. Bigger fish = more and bigger eggs = more nutrition for hatched larvae = higher survival rate. Hence why I like the zero keep rule in Lac Seul.
Realistically Larry, in these times if a dedicated musky angler were to kill the world record intentionally, certainly the fish would be marveled at, but the angler probably would soon regret doing so.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/1/2024 5:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle: while a bit off topic, we will have to agree to disagree.. As for maximum age of MUSKELLUNGE I'll defer to Dr. Casselman, developer of aging by cleithrum and maximum aging of muskies (not whitefish).
As for the keeping of an All-tackle world record muskie, we are talking about ONE fish, not a lake full!
Muskie anglers deserve a legitimate, controversy free world record. Currently there is only one record keeping program that can assure that; Modernmuskierecords.org | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/2/2024 10:07 AM
Oracle: while a bit off topic, we will have to agree to disagree.. As for maximum age of MUSKELLUNGE I'll defer to Dr. Casselman, developer of aging by cleithrum and maximum aging of muskies (not whitefish).
As for the keeping of an All-tackle world record muskie, we are talking about ONE fish, not a lake full!
Muskie anglers deserve a legitimate, controversy free world record. Currently there is only one record keeping program that can assure that; Modernmuskierecords.org
For sure, Larry. Not really going to know until we get a tag return or some photo evidence or some really accurate aging what the maximum actually is. I can't argue with anything Dr. Casselman has done to this point, just that testing a null hypothesis on what the maximum age is for muskellunge is not really possible. As methods of accurate aging develop, probably a worthwhile exercise is to re-age some of the currently oldest know muskellunge.
For everyone's benefit, fish aging structures are read like tree rings (in the case of pike/musky/pickerel - cleithrum most accurate=consistent among readers, anal fins/otoliths close, scales are relatively inaccurate).
The issue with old fish is if the fish is actually growing, then a growth ring is put down, but if very little, or not at all, then readers are just putting the fish at that last significant growth ring. In general the biggest, older fish in a sample to be aged are probably all at their maximum size and not necessarily growing enough to put down discernable rings, and thus are almost always underestimated. Someone aging is not going to estimate older when there is uncertainty as of course going to be messy as far as whatever growth or mortality estimates they are using the data for.
In the instance I am speaking of with whitefish, it was very important to get accurate ages given it was testing a hypothesis as to when these fish were recruited. The otoliths were aged using a computer assisted reader (this was in a lake trout lake just south of Minnitaki, a bit south of Lac Seul).
Fast growing fish like muskies probably have a shorter lifespan, but maybe not as short as one would think, and perhaps a 57 inch female musky could spawn another 10 or 15 years. In the case of Lac Seul fish, we are not looking for that fish to just replace itself, it has to replace itself and the males it is spawning with, and given the low density of fish in Lac Seul, we want it to do even better than that. This is why this Lac Seul situation overhandling is particularly concerning and rightfully frowned upon given the intent of the regulation.
I do hope the world record happens given it would be nice to get rid of these controversial records - I just hope it isn't up here in these natural spawning populations.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/2/2024 11:49 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle:
Between this thread and the "Allopatric" thread you are painting two dire situations (real or imagined), for the muskie lakes in NW Ontario. Should you wish to continue this "no keep", basically "no handling" discussion I would ask that you combine it with the "Allopatric" thread and leave this one to the 72-2 discussion.
IMO, you are dangerously close to advocating for NO muskie angling in NW Ontario at all when such factors as release mortality are factored in! | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/2/2024 2:05 PM
Oracle:
Between this thread and the "Allopatric" thread you are painting two dire situations (real or imagined), for the muskie lakes in NW Ontario. Should you wish to continue this "no keep", basically "no handling" discussion I would ask that you combine it with the "Allopatric" thread and leave this one to the 72-2 discussion.
IMO, you are dangerously close to advocating for NO muskie angling in NW Ontario at all when such factors as release mortality are factored in!
Roger that - over on the allopatric thread. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Further to on weighing. The wording very clear in this pamphlet:
"It is unlawful to target a species during its closed season even if you intend to release it.
Delaying the release of a fish for pictures or weighing is unlawful unless the fish can be
legally kept towards your limit."
https://files.ontario.ca/mnrf-catch-release-fishing-guidelines-angle...
| |
| | |
| So, as I read Oracle's last post, no matter how giant the fish may be, a world record fish could not come out of Lac Seul because you cannot keep a musky caught there and you can only weigh and photograph a fish that could be kept as part of your bag limit? | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NEWS FLASH: This fish has been removed from the IGFA website! Hopefully details why will be forth coming.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32806
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Interesting! | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NEWS FLASH CONT: Additional information has been learned from the IGFA:
"I’m happy to shed more light on the catch now that the record has been officially rejected. The main determining factor behind the rejection was the fact that the fish was weighed on the boat and not on land. This falls under section 3 of weighing requirements under IGFA World Record Requirements:
"3. No estimated weights will be accepted. With the exception of Junior and Smallfry records, fish must be weighed on land.
"No photos were submitted of the length or girth measurements, which is certainly something that we would have requested verification on given the significance of the catch. With the fish being weighed on the boat we did not request those photographs."
LR: Nothing was said about photos of the weighing or the weight on the scale, the MOST IMPORTANT part of an All-tackle World Record. More information is being requested. IGFA has shared a photo submitted; nearly the same photo as on page one, but the full picture and a slightly different angle. I'll send it to Mr. Worrall to add to this post.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/9/2024 9:04 AM
Attachments
----------------
image002[14162822].jpg (58KB - 31 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32806
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Like my old friend Tommy Skarlis used to say,
"It takes a #*^@ big dog to weigh a ton." | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | When you apply and your application not even complete, why even have as pending on a public website?
Hmm.. Bullet 3 of the IGFA "weighing regulations", a subcategory, is a long way down from the very first IGFA disqualification:
1. The following acts will disqualify a catch: 1. Failure to comply with equipment or angling regulations.
We've gone through the unambiguous release regulation, which we don't need to rehash.
As per one of my earlier posts, the same reg would apply to undersize muskies caught in Ontario and any other Ontario species (if any others are IGFA records) that cannot be kept as part of one's limit - ergo these could not be legally weighed given not lawfully complying with Ontario angling regulations and therefore should not be accepted as IGFA records according to this first disqualifier. Will leave at that...
Looks like a walleye rod and minnow bucket there, and a fish that has been hard fought. A bit more empathetic to the situation if it was walleye guys that caught this given the excitement of catch. Walleye guys and giant muskies seems to be a trend...
Is it better than we know that the scale is accurate or inaccurate? Not sure... A release video or photo would be nice to see though.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/9/2024 1:05 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1191
| When I originally saw the picture, my first thought was that it was caught by walleye fishermen with spinning gear. This picture confirms my suspicions. With those bloody fins and that fact that it was probably weighed hanging by it's gill plate, that fish is most certainly dead. No ill will to the anglers. No doubt they did not have any equipment or experience to deal with a fish like this. Their blood was pumping and they were freaking out. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | THOUGHTS; OPINIONS & FINAL WORD(?):
THOUGHTS: This is the most bizarre handling of a potential All-tackle World Record Muskie EVER! Not only that, but it is also the heaviest potential record muskie ever “claimed” for record. Instead of shouting from the roof tops as most would do, these folks choose to keep the catch “secret”. When it was finally discovered on the IGFA website that it had been submitted as an All-tackle World Record and I started this thread things stayed bizarre when one of the “group” posted half a photo with only the comment “This is it. Picture does no justice”. No other information has been forthcoming from the “group” either here on this thread or when I made multiple requests of them directly and off the board. I guess their mantra is silence.
OPINIONS: It would seem to me that someone making a “record claim” would be anxious to defend their position and provide as much information as possible to the public. Just the opposite is what is and has been taking place. Do they have something to hide? Have the comments regarding this fish on this thread “hit home” and they have no defense of them? Just what could it be that would keep someone from providing all possible evidence of their “claim”. Bizarre indeed!
FINAL WORD(?): Short of these gentlemen coming forward and presenting all of their supporting documentation and photographs that does indeed support their claim, I personally believe it has all been sham. No proof; no documentation; no photo’s, NO record!
| |
| | |
Posts: 487
Location: NW WI | Hey Larry since you've been in continued contact with the IGFA on this subject. Would you mind inquiring with them ; "On average how many record submissions do they receive per year for Pike and Musky?" I'm genuinely curious but also I'd hypothesize that that answer may provide a shred of insight to this submission.
Those who don't know, simply don't know, excited over an accidental Titan of a catch (whether it is or isn't, it is to them) in a blur of excitement and likely limited equipment-they kinda measure, they kinda weigh, and they kinda photograph, and than submit hoping for the best. Can't blame em
Please if you do ask, let us know their answer on this thread. Thank you | |
| | |
Posts: 1217
| A few things to consider if you have a very large fish in your boat or by your boat and getting a proper measurement and picture.
If there's two or more experienced fishermen in the boat is a starting with quality equipment including a large net and proper release tools and someone having good camera and yes a way to measure the fish. (in this day and age we have bump boards or 60" floating rulers, clothe tape measure for girth ECT and smart phones with a camera)
That is huge from everything someone to land the fish, more then one set of hands to remove hooks, more then one person to control the fish for a good measurement and someone who knows how to take a good photo. So we fish bodies of water that have a history of producing giant fish. We have caught large fish and seen some real monsters. But I would guess my boat has never been in casting distance of a record fish. Or driven over one.
So if your fishing by yourself, can you work a large net big enough land a record fish ? I guess you could hand land it or beach it. Control the fish by yourself? Or if it's hooked badly can you remove the hooks with one set of hands? Can you even see both ends of the ruler when fishing by yourself and trying to measure a long fish let alone a record fish? If you are on a large body of water or out in crappy weather chances there are going to be no one to help. So if you want a record fish with friends. Or if you want to keep it Wack it and bring it in and hope that it is as big as you think it is.
Things go bad fast when a non Muskie hooks the monster most the time they get away thru broken lines or no way to get them in the boat.
But I think a lot of these giant fish are caught out of season in Ontario with the late June opener.
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | 7.62xJay - 1/13/2024 6:57 PM
Hey Larry since you've been in continued contact with the IGFA on this subject. Would you mind inquiring with them ; "On average how many record submissions do they receive per year for Pike and Musky?" I'm genuinely curious but also I'd hypothesize that that answer may provide a shred of insight to this submission.
Those who don't know, simply don't know, excited over an accidental Titan of a catch (whether it is or isn't, it is to them) in a blur of excitement and likely limited equipment-they kinda measure, they kinda weigh, and they kinda photograph, and than submit hoping for the best. Can't blame em
Please if you do ask, let us know their answer on this thread. Thank you
I kinda of don't agree with you at all on this one. Blur of excitement is like the first minute in the net, after that it is all deliberate for whatever reason. These aren't 12 year olds or clueless millennials/Gen z'rs
When I say "a bit more empathetic" what I mean is if these were walleye guys, when it comes time to whatever charges or fines forthcoming, would be a bit more accepting of claim of ignorance - none at all if musky guys.
Just look at the IGFA records. If you want one, go and get one - the 30, 50, 80 lb test records are open with probably a pretty reasonable low minimum qualifier. Probably useful for marketing a lure or something, I don't know. If anyone is musky fishing because they care what other's opinions are of them and want a WR line class record for that, they can have at it - I think most people fish for muskies in general for internal gratification and achievement, with a very small minority musky fishing for commercial interests (making a living at it), and this latter segment may find these IGFA records useful for promotion.
The Lac Seul guys messed up badly (reputation wise) and picked the wrong fish to do it with IMO - especially after being given really good advice about keeping it on the DL.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/14/2024 12:36 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 487
Location: NW WI | I hear ya, I wasn't speaking of these 2 guys in specific. But what I'm questioning is how many times something like the following takes place:
Lets say father and son both inexperienced anglers, first vacation, first accidental musky, their eyes the size of saucers and underwear no longer white, mail out a submission not filled out to the "T". The IGFA would either have to disregard the application or inquire more with the angler to complete it where there is lack of information/proof, I would assume.
I haven't any idea what "Alot" of submissions would be, 30? Maybe? Certainly 100 in my mind would be outlandish. That's why I'd like to know. May give us better insight.
And yes, nowadays with the ability to share information quicker than ever and Ego's having high importance with everbodys internet persona or whatever you'd like to call it, I don't doubt that the IGFA has dealt with foul play and will continue to.
As far as what you said about open classes and marketing, yes certainly a record attributed to your company's equipment or viewership is a financial incentive to chase. But wouldn't that violate the Affidavit?
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ I certainly wasn't up on what the forms required until this Lac Seul fish came up. Once I read them I actually tended towards giving the weight and dimensions of the fish more credibility given submitting a signed affidavit on oath is a very serious undertaking. To lie under oath is covered under Section 131 of the Criminal Code here in Canada and there is a warning about it in every witness statement made to police to deter folks from lying. Now it turns out not a Canadian who caught it and IGFA not a Canadian entity, but would be foolhardy to sign an affidavit anywhere I think if you know what you are swearing an oath to is false. Not saying that is what happened here at all; on the contrary, hard to believe that the info submitted would be false as would be very imprudent to do so.
Sort of a long-winded point being that you pretty much need to be well prepared when you are attempting to get one of the line-class records or release records - you need to have a lot of things prepped in advance for the line class ones and the IGFA measuring tape for the release ones, and of course sign these affidavits under oath. The all tackle weight records you basically need a dead fish as per Larry's comments (or know you need to weigh on shore with an IGFA certified scale). So there are probably very few record submissions by folks just going at it ad hoc.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/14/2024 5:39 PM
| |
| | |
| Perhaps Mr. Ramsell could comment on whether there really any value today in trying to determine a "world record musky". When you have bodies of water like Lac Seul, where you cannot legally keep a musky and the record standards demanding a dead fish, how can you truly say a fish is the biggest?
Was watching a fishing show last winter where they were fishing for Goliath Grouper.
You can fish for them but cannot bring on board to even take the hook out. This was done to preserve the species and apparently has worked well. But today there can be no world record caught. Truly spectacular fish, and the guys fishing for them didn't seem at all concerned about not being able to weigh them. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Time to catch up. 7.62xJay asked if I would query IGFA about how many record submissions they get for muskie and pike.
LR: Jay I’ll put this question on hold until I have received responses for my last submission; relevant to this post.
7.62xJay also wrote: “Those who don't know, simply don't know, excited over an accidental Titan of a catch (whether it is or isn't, it is to them) in a blur of excitement and likely limited equipment-they kinda measure, they kinda weigh, and they kinda photograph, and than submit hoping for the best. Can't blame em”
LR: Jay and all, there is NO EXCUSE for not reading ALL of the Rules of Submission for Record (especially All-tackle) and complying completely or not at all. All record organizations have different rules, and all must be adhered to. NOTE: Any serious muskie angler fishing record potential waters and with any interest in claiming a record should it ever happen, should have copied and STUDIED each organizations RULES & Application form and have the necessary equipment and material needed to complete a claim. Those making accidental catches are simply out of luck if they cannot comply with all rules.
Chuckski had some interesting comments that highlight partially what can and should happen.
Oracle responded to 7.62xJay: “I kinda of don't agree with you at all on this one. Blur of excitement is like the first minute in the net, after that it is all deliberate for whatever reason. These aren't 12 year olds or clueless millennials/Gen z'rs
"When I say "a bit more empathetic" what I mean is if these were walleye guys, when it comes time to whatever charges or fines forthcoming, would be a bit more accepting of claim of ignorance - none at all if musky guys.
"Just look at the IGFA records. If you want one, go and get one - the 30, 50, 80 lb test records are open with probably a pretty reasonable low minimum qualifier. Probably useful for marketing a lure or something, I don't know. If anyone is musky fishing because they care what other's opinions are of them and want a WR line class record for that, they can have at it - I think most people fish for muskies in general for internal gratification and achievement, with a very small minority musky fishing for commercial interests (making a living at it), and this latter segment may find these IGFA records useful for promotion.
The Lac Seul guys messed up badly (reputation wise) and picked the wrong fish to do it with IMO - especially after being given really good advice about keeping it on the DL.”
LR: Pretty straight forward on several fronts!
7.62xJay responded: “I hear ya, I wasn't speaking of these 2 guys in specific. But what I'm questioning is how many times something like the following takes place:
Lets say father and son both inexperienced anglers, first vacation, first accidental musky, their eyes the size of saucers and underwear no longer white, mail out a submission not filled out to the "T". The IGFA would either have to disregard the application or inquire more with the angler to complete it where there is lack of information/proof, I would assume.”
LR: I cannot speak to IGFA procedures but would assume any application or rule(s) not completely complied with would be denied pending compliance if possible.
7.62 continues: “I haven't any idea what "Alot" of submissions would be, 30? Maybe? Certainly 100 in my mind would be outlandish. That's why I'd like to know. May give us better insight.”
LR: I would suspect that the difficulty and “pre-preparation” necessary to comply with an IGFA record, that the number of applications they actually receive is minimal for pike and muskies. Salt water is another matter.
7.62xJay cont.: “…I don't doubt that the IGFA has dealt with foul play and will continue to. As far as what you said about open classes and marketing, yes certainly a record attributed to your company's equipment or viewership is a financial incentive to chase. But wouldn't that violate the Affidavit?”
LR: My reading of the IGFA rules is that financial reward would apply to immediate post catch, i.e. prize/cash tournaments and the like.
Oracle responded: “^^ I certainly wasn't up on what the forms required until this Lac Seul fish came up. Once I read them I actually tended towards giving the weight and dimensions of the fish more credibility given submitting a signed affidavit on oath is a very serious undertaking. To lie under oath is covered under Section 131 of the Criminal Code here in Canada and there is a warning about it in every witness statement made to police to deter folks from lying. Now it turns out not a Canadian who caught it and IGFA not a Canadian entity but would be foolhardy to sign an affidavit anywhere I think if you know what you are swearing an oath to is false. Not saying that is what happened here at all; on the contrary, hard to believe that the info submitted would be false as would be very imprudent to do so.”
LR: While all true, people lie all the time on affidavits; in court and to the Law. In a case such as this one that we are discussing, it would be impossible to PROVE that those involved lied about the weight, save confession…obviously unlikely to happen in this instance. That is why the MDMWRP (modernmuskierecords.org) rules of verification are so stringent and require a corpus delecti. I see no way that someone could cheat our program!!
Oracle continued: …”The all tackle weight records you basically need a dead fish as per Larry's comments (or know you need to weigh on shore with an IGFA certified scale). So there are probably very few record submissions by folks just going at it ad hoc.”
LR: Once again, I submit that if one desires to have a UNQUESTIONABLE All-tackle World Record muskie, that the fish must be kept and satisfy MDMWRP protocol. Most will laud IGFA’s recommendation that even All-tackle records should be released “if possible”, but will the muskie world, based on falsifications and cheating of history, EVER be satisfied with such a record? In my mind NO! Don’t want to kill a potential record, fine let it go and be satisfied, but don’t be surprised if not everyone believes in it.
7.62xJay: “Perhaps Mr. Ramsell could comment on whether there really any value today in trying to determine a "world record musky". When you have bodies of water like Lac Seul, where you cannot legally keep a musky and the record standards demanding a dead fish, how can you truly say a fish is the biggest?...
LR: I have to say Yes! All past bogus claims aside, records help scientists with the knowledge of the maximum potential growth of a species. In addition, as can be seen here on this Forum with already well over 12,000 “views” on this thread, there is apparently great interest within the muskie community regarding just what is the World Record Muskie (Muskellunge/Masquinongy)!!!
In the muskie world, Lac Suel is the only potential world record muskie producer where a muskie cannot be kept (and no known muskie OVER 60 POUNDS was ever registered from there before closure), compared to Goliath Grouper which cannot be kept anywhere. However, this fact does not, nor can it mean that Lac Suel DOES have a potential All-tackle World Record Muskie in it, and certainly the unproven fish which is the subject of this thread does not make it so.
| |
| | |
Posts: 72
| The muskie fishing community certainly is an interesting bunch. We preach CPR and minimal handling of fish, especially the true giants and trophies, but at the same time when a world record class fish is submitted anglers are criticized for a lack of pictures or bad angles...which would require more handling. Seems like you're #*^@ed if you do #*^@ed if you don't. | |
| | |
Posts: 8729
| Not poo-pooing the IFGA here just to make that clear. That said, the amount of research and preparation you'd have to do ahead of time to be able to properly submit a record fish is a bit much. If you wait until you have one in the net to think about record potential you may as well just dump it out of the net and go on with your day.
I can honestly say that's probably what I would do. I wouldn't want to kill it. Went through that back in the day with a LMB I chased for the better part of a summer. Finally caught it. Everybody oohed and ahhed, and said they thought I was full of #*#* talking about this fish week after week. Everybody said I had to get it mounted, so I did. The following weekend it hit me that the fish I was chasing wasn't out there any more and I'd probably never see another one like it. Still have the mount, which is cool I guess. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | My IGFA contact has been out of the country and I just got a response from him. He stated that "Unfortunately, there was no photographs submitted along with the application showing the weight of the fish."
So now its up to the folks involved should they like to try and support their weight claim.
7.62xJay: I asked your question re number of apps. if "easily" available. If I get a reply I'll post it.
EA: Yes, it does take a lot of research and preparation ahead of time for someone interested in properly registering a potential All-tackle world record...necessarily so I might add! Your solution to not doing so is right on target. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 7.62xJay and all: Information has been received regarding the number of muskie and pike record submissions received by the IGFA and information that the IGFA also has club recognition for qualifying muskies that aren't records:
IGFA: ..."It certainly differs from year to year. Recently Tiger muskie have been a popular record species I often receive between 5-10 applications a year. Between muskie and pike there have been years where I have up to 10 applications, but also years like 2023 where I've only received 4. Something I've always tried to promote is the IGFA Pike and Muskie Trophy Clubs,- International Game Fish Association (igfa.org). (this was a link i doubt will work here direct to "club" info...LR) I'm sure several anglers catch fish every year that would qualify for the trophy club and I think it is a great way to promote the fishery."
LR: So, here is a way for those not prepared when catching a potential record class fish or just a way to recognition if your muskie is over 30-pounds or 50-inches. (personally I believe recognizing weight is contrary to the necessary C&R highly practiced today by muskie anglers and will make it known to IGFA). | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Kurita's world record "tie" largemouth has a lot of similarities - except in that case largemouth an invasive to be eradicated and thus kept. But the weighing, affidavit, special fishing reg (no anchoring on spot) and then taking a polygraph to verify claims, folks questioning veracity, etc. - IGFA has a precedent on how to handle a record of major interest:
https://www.startribune.com/new-co-world-record-22-4-largemouth-bass...
There is a point when a pending IGFA record should be up on their site, but I think that point would be after an initial vetting of whether the application is complete as far the basic requirements - not immediately.
Based on what you are telling us, Larry, right from the IGFA sources, it didn't even meet the IGFA rules, never mind abiding by the regulations of the waterbody claimed from.
The problem with the current state of the internet is that this AI (artificial insanity) is that it gathers up facts and nonsense with equal abandon and gives whatever weight it wants to it. I hope this 72 2 thing goes way (if continues to be unverified) - but probably too late.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/17/2024 11:40 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 487
Location: NW WI | Hey thanks for asking Larry, I appreciate it. I really had no anticipated figure in mind but i believe that those low number of submissions is enough to prove my previous theory of let's say "voluntary ignorance submissions" as false.
I am not an IGFA member so maybe this data is just not visible to myself or I'm navigating the sight wrong but is there a viewable previous record log that can be viewed by the public? | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 7.62xJay: I'm not aware of what you ask about on the IGFA site, but I recall Angling Oracle referring to something of that nature earlier in this thread. Perhaps he can enlighten us.
By the way, Oracles link to the Largemouth Bass record story would certainly indicate the this supposed 72-2 was a looong way from ever being accepted, had it even been submitted with all required information and photographs!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/18/2024 8:34 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/18/2024 8:23 AM
7.62xJay: I'm not aware of what you ask about on the IGFA site, but I recall Angling Oracle referring to something of that nature earlier in this thread. Perhaps he can enlighten us.
By the way, Oracles link to the Largemouth Bass record story would certainly indicate the this supposed 72-2 was a looong way from ever being accepted, had it even been submitted with all required information and photographs!
Page I was referring to is this one for straight up muskellunge that is just the current stuff for all categories.
https://igfa.org/member-services/world-record/common-name/Muskellung...
It does confirm that the majority of records are usually by folks specifically trying to get them. If you pick an angler and click on their name, you can see all the different records they currently hold for other species as well.
Re. Largemouth - the article did miss one little bit, 10.12 kgs is actually 22 pounds 5 ounces (4.97 ounces), but because it didn't beat the old record by the percentages required by IGFA, it is deemed a tie - hence why I had "tie" in quotes.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/18/2024 3:43 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1
| I have a story to tell but just not ready to share it.
Though I can assure you 60 plus inch 70lb muskies due exist. Needle in a haystack and 25 years of hard casting, miles trolling and 10's of thousands of $$$$ it finally happened. Stay tuned. | |
| | |
Posts: 307
| No shock or surprise on the 60 inch thing but the 72 lb thing does surprise.Anxiously await your info. | |
| | |
Posts: 168
| GeorgianBay27! - 3/17/2024 5:56 PM
I have a story to tell but just not ready to share it.
Though I can assure you 60 plus inch 70lb muskies due exist. Needle in a haystack and 25 years of hard casting, miles trolling and 10's of thousands of $$$$ it finally happened. Stay tuned.
We'll never hear from this guy again lol. | |
| | |
| BillM - 3/18/2024 11:41 AM GeorgianBay27! - 3/17/2024 5:56 PM I have a story to tell but just not ready to share it. Though I can assure you 60 plus inch 70lb muskies due exist. Needle in a haystack and 25 years of hard casting, miles trolling and 10's of thousands of $$$$ it finally happened. Stay tuned. We'll never hear from this guy again lol. Looks like GeorgianBay27! is now trolling the internet and he's getting a few bites.  | |
| | |
Posts: 8729
| I still say 70# is possible.
It would have to be a late fall fish, carrying substantial egg mass, and a belly full of whitefish. If such a fish exists it's probably going to be laying around digesting a meal and wouldn't chase a lure if you did get one in front of it. That's the other thing. A fish like that isn't going to be hanging around in any of the places we usually fish, and I don't think it would be likely to bother with the relatively small offerings we fish with.
I've said this before: If there is one caught and someone gets a halfway decent picture of it there won't be much doubt as to the size, because it will dwarf any musky any of us have ever seen. | |
| | |
Posts: 32806
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | dickP - 3/18/2024 8:01 AM
No shock or surprise on the 60 inch thing but the 72 lb thing does surprise.Anxiously await your info.
Wane Farrell is the name on the login. 1 login and 1 post since signing up on the 16th. Not looking promising. | |
| | |
Posts: 8729
| 60"x33.34" would get you to 72#. That's a fish you could bear hug and rest your chin on it's back. Just about the same girth as a 5 gallon bucket. | |
| | |
Posts: 168
| I hate to be that guy, so take this as you will.
I've got a buddy who's been in the muskie game a long time, guided a lot celebs (and fishing hosts) in his day. Friends with guys people would consider muskie 'gods'. He's told me about fish that have been caught over 60in and released in Gbay. No pics, no articles, no nothing. Do I believe him? I actually do. This guy has caught more muskies over 50in then I care to even imagine (and I've seen pics of some really high 50in giants). Big water pelagic fish eating those oily whitefish/herring/trout. I doubt I'll ever put a lure in front of one of these fish, but it's nice to know they gotta be out there somewhere | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | BillM - 3/21/2024 9:49 AM
He's told me about fish that have been caught over 60in and released in Gbay. )
One too many beers for him that night.
And I don't mean that he is not telling the truth, that he had loose lips about it. | |
| | |
Posts: 8729
| I can see keeping fish quiet if we're talking about a 500 acre lake, but anybody who knows this crazy sport already knows about Georgian Bay, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake, Green Bay, St Clair, and all the other trophy fisheries. We all want to catch the biggest musky ever, but that doesn't mean any of us are going to flock to the great lakes fisheries when so and so catches a giant. The guys who would probably have a snowballs chance in hell of any measurable success there anyway. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | esoxaddict - 3/21/2024 12:55 PM
I can see keeping fish quiet if we're talking about a 500 acre lake, but anybody who knows this crazy sport already knows about Georgian Bay, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake, Green Bay, St Clair, and all the other trophy fisheries. We all want to catch the biggest musky ever, but that doesn't mean any of us are going to flock to the great lakes fisheries when so and so catches a giant. The guys who would probably have a snowballs chance in hell of any measurable success there anyway.
"There is no reason to have to report where you catch your muskies. When you work hard, there's no reason to give all your secrets away." - Dick Pearson- circa 1984 (In-Fisherman)
It is not the folks flocking from elsewhere you have to worry about, it is the other folks that fish the same place you do. No different that hunting big bucks, best turkey, pheasant and grouse spots, duck marsh, etc. Keep your mouth shut and your net outta sight.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/21/2024 1:19 PM
| |
| | |
| One thought on the Dick Pearson quote: At the time he wrote that (1984), we didn't have SI/DI and electronics did not allow you to save hot spots, structure with a finger touch on a screen or press a button and later allow you to follow electronic path back. In the 1970s, a friend's brother-in-law took us to a boulder pile in the Three Lakes chain. Back then, you had to be lucky to find that in the middle of the lake and very few musky guys knew about its potential for big skis. Today, it is on maps and easy to pinpoint with electronics.
Dick's point may still be valid, but it is a very different era in finding fishing spots. | |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 72-2 REVISITED YET AGAIN AND HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME!
In my post of Jan. 10 , I posted “Thoughts; Opinions and Final Word (?)
So, no that was not the final word. While several months have passed since that post, new and important input has been received. But first a little back story:
Unknown to me, about a month ago there was a segment about this fish on the MeatEaters podcast. On that podcast an invitation was extended to me to appear on a future MeatEaters podcast and discuss this fish. A friend alerted me about this, so I did some research.
First, I found out that the MeatEaters podcast was the #1 US/SPORTS/WILDLIFE podcast and also #1 in Canada in the same category. In 2020 MeatEater had an average of 4 million downloads per month (and likely considerably more now)!
My first alert was on a podcast by the Musky Fools, lamenting about some of the muskie content on that MeatEaters podcast, about “muskie 2.0” catch and release.
I then watched that first MeatEaters podcast to see what all the hub bub was about. From that I learned that MeatEaters had received a Manifesto from “Observer #5, one of the folks involved in the capture of the subject fish. In addition, “musky 2.0” regarding catch & release came up as well as muskie “strains”, which also got involved and included considerable misinformation.
I then contacted MeatEaters to learn more about this invitation and if in fact it was so. It was and is! I also inquired about getting a copy of that Manifesto to see what additional information I could glean from it and on the podcast, it was obvious that there were several additional photo’s heretofore unseen by me and the general public. Seems however it had been misplaced there and an all-out search produced no results. Darn.
Then, while this was going on, out of the blue on Saturday, May18th, I received an email from “Observer #5” with a copy of that Manifesto! Wow, what great timing. At any rate, since then I have had a chance to thoroughly go through it and have a 40-minute phone conversation with “O#5.
From all of that, I feel that I can now clarify some of the misinformation I posted previously and finally clear up the many unanswered questions that I, and others had.
First, the cropped photograph of the fish that was posted was not posted by one of the group of five that were involved in the capture of said fish. O#5 had no idea who had posted it (which likely explains why I didn’t receive any responses to my “private messages” to whomever, requesting more information).
Second, this was family group of two Uncles/Dad’s and three Cousins who have fished for multiple species in Canada for several years. They were not serious Muskie Hunters! In fact, this muskie was the first muskie the gentleman who actually caught the fish had ever caught (don’t you just hate that?)!! The groups “norm” was challenge fishing for 20/30/40/50 (20-inch smallmouth/30-inch walleye/40-inch northern pike/ and 50-inch muskie.
Third, none of that group was aware of this thread on MuskieFirst until it was nearly over. They’re not “shouting it from the roof tops” rather than keep quiet was just the way they boogy. After IGFA denied the record, they felt there was no need to discuss it further and get into a heated discussion. It just wasn’t that important to them. It was almost an afterthought that “O#5 sent the manifesto to me. He and the group feel that this fish was legit and perhaps the largest ever caught. More later.
As for my opinion in my Jan. 10 post about providing as much evidence as possible about this fish, it WAS done, only it was sent to MeatEater and not this thread because they didn’t know about it until later. They had nothing to hide.
Fourth, my “(un)final” word, they have come forth and presented their case to me. So, I retract my comment about their conducting a “Sham”. Their “Manifesto” answers all my questions.
In addition:
The scale used was checked after the fact and found to be right on at 50-pounds and showing weighing light (73.5#) at 75# weight on the scale. (again, application denied due to fish being weighed on the boat).
Several other IGFA rules were not complied with but not followed up on by IGFA due to the weighing in the boat, i.e., length measurements (TL & FL) on an IGFA bump board; girth measurement (which was not done, only an “estimate” was made as the girth tape was in the other boat and couldn’t be readily found and time was of the essence)!
The Angler who caught the fish was concerned to get it back in the water asap, but they also wanted to document the size and weight of what they thought could be a world record. I’m not sure that they realized that muskies in Lac Suel were Catch & Immediate release ONLY.
The length measurement was a three-ring circus involving all five guys and two measuring devices which would not have met IGFA standards. The girth measurement, as noted, was estimated and unacceptable.
The weighing was done in the boat with one guy standing on the boat seat and lifting the gill-hooked fish up. It took two tries for him to clear the floor of the boat with the fish’s tail. Only two members of the group saw the reading, not including O#5. NOTE: After the MeatEater podcast, several mathematicians and engineers wrote in to explain WHY a record fish should NOT be weighed on the boat. Quite involved and lengthy and I won’t publish that here.
MY CONCLUSION:
After looking at 12 different photographs of the fish in question, it is still my considered opinion that it did not weigh near the weight claimed. However, I wasn’t there and didn’t see the fish in the flesh. Using the measurements given to apply formula to this fish is an exercise in futility because there is no assurance that they are anywhere near correct knowing the methods used to obtain them and accuracy is key in determining “estimated” weight via formula.
Was a true GIANT caught? Absolutely! Was it a potential World Record? Unknown and never will be. Did these gentlemen try to perpetuate a hoax/sham? NO! After reading the Manifesto and talking to O#5 for 40-minutes, I sincerely do NOT believe that they did. I think that they (at least O#5 and I hope to talk to the angler soon) understand that many mistakes were made in trying to document this significant catch.
Let this once again be notice to the masses that may ever want to try and Certify a potential World Record Muskie catch. You MUST become intimately familiar with the Rules of the various record keeping organizations and have whatever necessary on board to accomplish the deed.
In a last promotion for the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program (www.modernmuskierecords.org), I sincerely believe that our program’s rules (modernmuskierecords.org/rules) are the only record program’s rules that are undefeatable and will result in a World Record Muskie or Muskie Hybrid that everyone can believe in.
Have a GREAT season…
| |
| | |
| Interesting update. But, Larry, the reality is that had the anglers been fully aware of all rules and regulations from Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program, had large print waterproof copy in the boat, given the regulations on that body of water they could not do what was required in the rules and not violated the fishing regulations. | |
| | |
| *
Edited by North of 8 5/19/2024 9:19 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1280
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North, the rules noted did not pertain to this fish or Lac Suel. It was a given that
was noted previously.
| |
| | |
| Larry, I posted because in the next to last paragraphs of your post in your message to "the masses" it appears you are pointing out what should have been done, etc. Unless someone had gone back through the thread, they would not know that it was not possible on this great body of water to do what the rules require. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Thanks for clearing that up, Larry.
Sort of fits perfectly what we suspected initially with the light tackle in background and the info being hard to come by. Hopefully the fish still doing well.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2015
| Larry,
I listen to Meateater, and watch the show. I would love for you to take them up on the invite and give a abbreviated history of muskies, as well as why we're a very particular lot, in regards to sizes and CPR/handling.
It's a hunting show, and focuses on things they can eat. So, the 2 episodes where they discussed muskies etc, did not put us muskie nuts in a very good light. If you don't want to fly, they do a hunt in WI occasionally, maybe it can be arranged around that. | |
| |
|
