Posted 11/29/2015 3:54 PM (#794578 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Todd M said: "Awesome fish and I love the bump board and girth measurement pics! All that is missing is a notorized certificate of authenticity! Congrats!"
Todd, a "certificate of authenticity" isn't needed. The great photos say it all! It was indeed a great fish, but unfortunately we will never know what it did weigh, quite simply because it wasn't weighed and/or kept.
It is a monster and most likely would have been, at the very least, a new state record, like a few other Mille Lacs fish (and others from elsewhere) before it had it been kept.
Dean contacted Steve Worrall of the MDMWR Program, who passed it off to me earlier and Dean was unfortunately under a misconception of what it took to become a new world record, thinking that the photo's, measurements and video, along with a notarized statement, would get the job done. This is in spite of the fact that the Modern Day World Record Program has had a home on this site for several years now and our "Rules" have always been available to everyone (www.modernmuskierecord.org).
I don't wish to be a wet blanket or cast aspersions on this tremendous accomplishment, obviously it was for real, but as I have stated many, many times on this board, "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it." I mean no disrespect to these two gentlemen, but the standard formula (L X G X G/800) quite simply usually overstates the weight of these BIG girls. The Crawford formula (L X G/25 minus 10) is much closer to actual weighed fish, but not perfect either, and shows this fish at 56 pounds. Last year there was a 53 X 29 caught from Mille Lacs that was weighed. The standard formula put it at 55.71 pounds and the Crawford formula put it at 51.48 pounds. It actually weighed 53 pounds on a scale, just a pound and a half more than the Crawford formula and almost 3 pounds less than the standard formula.
My recommendation: If you wish to establish a new Modern Day World Record, you must keep the fish and follow the rules..to the letter. If you wish to catch and release a giant such as this fish, you may still carry a certified scale in the boat, weigh it and then let it go and while it can't qualify as a new record for weight, it can be claimed with certainty, an accurate weight and not an "estimatate".
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day World Record Program
Posted 11/29/2015 7:25 PM (#794591 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1969
Heck of a fish - congrats!
Ben Olsen
Posted 11/29/2015 7:35 PM (#794593 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
MDMWR and Larry, If the fish was weighed on a certified scale and enough evidence was provided why shouldn't the fish be a record?!? People have been convicted and sentenced to death based on far less evidence! We need a record keeping organization that reflects current CPR ethics! It continues to suck that fish need to be killed to get an official record!! Sorry to hijack...another place and time.
Posted 11/29/2015 8:33 PM (#794597 - in reply to #794593) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 69
Ben Olsen - 11/29/2015 7:35 PM
MDMWR and Larry, If the fish was weighed on a certified scale and enough evidence was provided why shouldn't the fish be a record?!? People have been convicted and sentenced to death based on far less evidence! We need a record keeping organization that reflects current CPR ethics! It continues to suck that fish need to be killed to get an official record!! Sorry to hijack...another place and time.
Posted 11/29/2015 9:11 PM (#794600 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Guys:
I too applaud Dean and Dominic for releasing a fish of that caliber and I understand everyone's lament that a released fish cannot qualify for WR status by weight, but even "if" weighed on a certified scale before release it could never stand scrutiny if released. The Committee of the MDMWRP discussed these matters at length and there is just no way to ever truly certify the weight of a released fish. History is rife with bogus claims of fish that were even kept and that is what we are trying to prevent by developing rules that make it impossible for that to happen again. That is impossible when a fish is released.
I hope you all understand and also understand what a tremendous fish Dominic and Dean caught and released, regardless what it may or may have not weighed.
Posted 11/29/2015 9:25 PM (#794601 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 242
What an UNBELIEVABLE fish! Easily a fish of 10,000 Lifetimes.
As far as the MDMWR or the IGFA, who really cares if it was a record or not? Watching that release video and seeing the fish swim off strong and healthy is much much better than seeing it dead on a grocery store scale to satisfy the rules of those organizations. I'll be watching that video long after I would look to see the weight of some fish on a list.
Posted 11/29/2015 10:20 PM (#794603 - in reply to #794600) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 295
Larry Ramsell - 11/29/2015 10:11 PM
History is rife with bogus claims of fish that were even kept and that is what we are trying to prevent by developing rules that make it impossible for that to happen again. That is impossible when a fish is released.
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
MDMWRP
These two back-to-back statements immediately contradict themselves.
Posted 11/30/2015 2:07 AM (#794614 - in reply to #794600) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 28
I agree with Larry Ramsell and feel he couldnt of said it better. Personally, I have never kept a muskie in my life but I would of kept that fish, had I caught it. We all know how important catch and release is for a fishery; however, the mount of that fish as a certified record could be used in many ways that would benefit the fishery as a whole much more than releasing it would.
Posted 11/30/2015 6:18 AM (#794616 - in reply to #794614) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 444
Congrats on a Huge Queen. Pics say it all.
Letting the fish go is alot more important then some record by some "organization" which amounts to your name on a website or a piece of paper.
Posted 11/30/2015 8:48 AM (#794625 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 98
Loved Larry's response. Bottom line is that unless you are willing to kill the fish don't claim it as a world record. The facts are that people who are fishing for a new world record only release fish that they know are not world records. The claim that it is a word record is made to draw attention.
Posted 11/30/2015 9:41 AM (#794630 - in reply to #794436) Subject: RE: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 711
With respect to those who attempt to legitimize and clarify the record keeping issues and the anglers involved in this and the other spectacular catch's this fall:
There is no "World Record" and really how can there ever be one. Competing against the mostly falsified claims of the past is chasing a ghost...but those claims are still out there and perception being what it is there will always be some who use that as the standard.
We don't really know what the biggest Muskie ever caught was or who caught it and we never will because Muskies get released and before the age of Go-Pro, self timers and the internet numbers of huge fish were caught and never documented.
Again and to be clear...are we trying to figure out what the biggest muskie ever caught was (impossible) or the biggest one that someone bothered to kill and document.
And that folks is the conundrum...we will NEVER know for sure what "The Record" is.
What I do know is that it is a spectacular fish that rises a bit above the other spectacular fish caught this fall...again congrats. Every muskie angler aspires to touch one of that caliber...at least to me that is all that really matters.
