|
|
Posts: 668
Location: mercer wi | I think that 63" was 2 fish and the 69# was 30# of sand and lead |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Winternet trolling is a tactic that will often catch a whopper. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
Location: Florida | I am sure there are lakes in remote areas of Canada that have +60'' Muskies in them. Would be nice to see the current record broken in the near future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20180
Location: oswego, il | NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Webster might use this as an example for the definition of naive. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | Maybe Dryberry. I've always thought it would be awesome to fish that lake.. any input on this lake Larry??
Edited by JakeStCroixSkis 12/14/2016 1:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| ToddM - 12/13/2016 10:30 PM
NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Webster might use this as an example for the definition of naive.
Perhaps this fish discredits the Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame? There are those who claim it was falsified, who am I to say I never saw the fish. I have little dought fish of this size are swimming somewhere, this is likely near the max size limit for the species.
Edited by NPike 12/14/2016 3:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jake: Dryberry is one of those western Ontario trout lakes that certainly have the potential to put out a world class fish. I'd put it in the same category as the Manitou's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| This thread makes me yearn for a fall big fish hunt of a different sort in 2017.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Brad P... That's why I started this thread. As usual goes south in a hurry with modern experts and gurus opinions. I actually saw the old Spray fish in Rice Lake when I was a kid.
There is no absolute proof the fish wasn't that big, scientific conjecture yes, proof no. Odds are the Spray musky was smaller than claimed. Fact is, it is a Musky of legend, one way or the other. A whole areas mystique was built on Spray and that fish. Great story and great history. I really don't care how big Sprays' musky was. Its the mystique, the legend, the history that makes so many of us musky nuts.
Take away the legend,(true or false) and you leave a gaping hole in our sport.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8720
| NPike - 12/14/2016 3:14 AM
ToddM - 12/13/2016 10:30 PM
NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Webster might use this as an example for the definition of naive.
Perhaps this fish discredits the Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame? There are those who claim it was falsified, who am I to say I never saw the fish. I have little dought fish of this size are swimming somewhere, this is likely near the max size limit for the species.
I'd bet there's at least one fish of that caliber out there somewhere, late fall, full of eggs, just ate, in a large body of water with just the right water chemistry and forage. I believe a 70# fish is possible. Just not in Hayward. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| Jerry, you could call it " Newman's Own "  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | travelingfisherman - 12/13/2016 7:05 PM
I am sure there are lakes in remote areas of Canada that have +60'' Muskies in them. Would be nice to see the current record broken in the near future.
I believe Lac Seul puts out the most 55+" in NW Ontario. Even way up there they only have so many places to hide though |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | esoxaddict - 12/14/2016 5:01 PM
I'd bet there's at least one fish of that caliber out there somewhere, late fall, full of eggs, just ate, in a large body of water with just the right water chemistry and forage. I believe a 70# fish is possible. Just not in Hayward.
Highly unlikely indeed, but it could be there. As long as the boat stays in the garage you'll never know.  |
|
| |
|
| One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| North of 8 - 12/14/2016 6:51 PM
One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had.
By huckster you mean good at lobbing dynamite right? |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | North of 8 - 12/14/2016 6:51 PM
One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had.
I think it's safe to say he caught some nice fish. He also hired other people to procure some of the fish that became his "world records". One thing for sure, the drive to own "record" after "record" is indicative of a man with a huge ego.
He'd fit right in with many modern day musky fisherman.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8720
| North of 8 - 12/14/2016 6:51 PM
One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had.
Fished with a guy a few years ago who lived his whole life on a Canadian shield lake. I'll paraphrase a bit..
"Yeah, this is my first year with a bow mount. I still don't use it that much. I'm getting used to the pedal a little bit, but I'd rather just run the tiller..."
"Picked up this handheld GPS thing. I guess it's cool, but I'm just now learning how to work it. I guess I can mark stuff and come back to it later, but I've always just remembered where everything was at. And I have this stupid phone... I didn't even have a phone until a couple years ago. And no TV. TV seems like a waste of money. I'd rather read a book or a newspaper than stare at a screen..."
"I only fish this spot when the wind hits it just right. I can set up a drift and let the wind take me across the bar that comes off that point over there. When the wind blows from the water tower, the fish stack up between that brown rock and the edge of the weed line that wraps around the end of the island. Never seen much on it on sunny days or calm days, but a cloudy day with the wind coming form over there (pointing) I always catch fish!"
And catch fish we did... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Mudpuppy - 12/14/2016 4:19 PM Brad P... That's why I started this thread. As usual goes south in a hurry with modern experts and gurus opinions. I actually saw the old Spray fish in Rice Lake when I was a kid. There is no absolute proof the fish wasn't that big, scientific conjecture yes, proof no. Odds are the Spray musky was smaller than claimed. Fact is, it is a Musky of legend, one way or the other. A whole areas mystique was built on Spray and that fish. Great story and great history. I really don't care how big Sprays' musky was. Its the mystique, the legend, the history that makes so many of us musky nuts. Take away the legend,(true or false) and you leave a gaping hole in our sport. Mudpuppy “scientific conjecture?” Math and science were used to scientifically prove the world record was not as large as advertised, the results were even peer-reviewed. The methodology used to uphold the record by John Detloff when it was challenged in 2005 was referred to as “dubious” by their own experts once they found out how they had been manipulated and lied to by the Hall of Fame. SIAM: Fish Story: Math Weighs In, Muskie Comes Up Short Quote: "Is mathematics being ignored in a situation where it could provide a valuable service?" "I think it's slightly worse than that," the IMA director says. "I think it's being manipulated . . . that there's an attempt, by giving out limited evidence and going to different people, to come up with a point of view that supports a decision that perhaps they had already come to in any case."
With all due respect; the fish you think you saw was simply a Frankenstein mount, just like the other two Spray muskie records... unless of course you feel the mount is a good representation of this fish.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/14/2016 9:08 PM
Attachments
----------------
 1939MountFresh.jpg (21KB - 453 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | If one can deny humanity's role in climate change despite unequivocal scientific evidence, why not follow through and defend the alleged size of a musky despite scientific evidence ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2005
| esoxaddict - 12/14/2016 8:51 PM
And catch fish we did...
Except for this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track?
I have a question on process:
In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this.
So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success?
For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat?
I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet.
What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen.
I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
Edited by Brad P 12/15/2016 8:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2280
Location: Chisholm, MN | Brad P - 12/15/2016 8:47 AM
I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track?
I have a question on process:
In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this.
So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success?
For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat?
I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet.
What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen.
I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
To me, it's unrealistic to hunt for this one fish, especially for regular guys like most of us on this forum. I spend a lot of time on one of these bodies of water that has potential for a state record (world record by a long shot). I've never seen anything that comes close. I've never even caught "big one". Big would be 55 or so, for the sake of this conversation. How could that be? I spend productive time on productive water, and I catch my fair share of fish...and good ones too.
I guess in order to be a world record hunter, you have to be on the water full time. I work full time. Not gonna happen. Of course, you COULD get lucky. But what are the odds?
My goal is to one day catch a 56 incher. I'd say it could happen, but honestly, how many guys actually catch a 56 incher? Even 55 is a tough goal. Some people do it fairly consistently, but the odds are stacked against you. So for now, I will put myself in the position to catch a giant like that as much as possible, but I will be very happy with a 52 incher if the 56 never shows herself. 60? I hope someone catches her, and I hope it's a regular old muskie guy or gal that gets bit!
Good luck to the dreamers! |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I'd agree with Kirby here.., if you are going out with the goal to catch a 60 incher you are setting yourself up for failure... Larry has compiled a pretty good list of what he thinks are legit 60s in recent history... now take into account the thousands of muskies caught, your odds of catching a 60 incher have to be 1 in the hundreds of thousands? keep in mind, 60"ers are usually old fish, and not fat... on the decline... while the 60" mark is a great mark to hit, the fish more than likely won't weigh much...a better goal might be a 55 lber in all reality those happen each fall on lakes like Mille Lacs... 60" is just not a realistic goal in my mind to actually target.... my 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2280
Location: Chisholm, MN | And look at some of the people who do actually catch a long one. The guy on Crane Lake comes to mind who caught that 58 incher. Really? After all the time I put in on big fish water, a guy happens to go to Crane, of all places, and catches one of the longest muskies in MN history! LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | Kirby Budrow - 12/15/2016 9:09 AM
Brad P - 12/15/2016 8:47 AM
I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track?
I have a question on process:
In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this.
So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success?
For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat?
I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet.
What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen.
I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
To me, it's unrealistic to hunt for this one fish, especially for regular guys like most of us on this forum. I spend a lot of time on one of these bodies of water that has potential for a state record (world record by a long shot ). I've never seen anything that comes close. I've never even caught "big one". Big would be 55 or so, for the sake of this conversation. How could that be? I spend productive time on productive water, and I catch my fair share of fish...and good ones too.
I guess in order to be a world record hunter, you have to be on the water full time. I work full time. Not gonna happen. Of course, you COULD get lucky. But what are the odds?
My goal is to one day catch a 56 incher. I'd say it could happen, but honestly, how many guys actually catch a 56 incher? Even 55 is a tough goal. Some people do it fairly consistently, but the odds are stacked against you. So for now, I will put myself in the position to catch a giant like that as much as possible, but I will be very happy with a 52 incher if the 56 never shows herself. 60? I hope someone catches her, and I hope it's a regular old muskie guy or gal that gets bit!
Good luck to the dreamers!
I agree with Kirby here. I realize you (Brad P) was not saying this, but I don't think it is a good thing to base success or failure off of one freak fish. Sure, nice if it happens, but I am still going to be excited every time I see a fish in the mid to upper 40's range, and enjoy my time on the water no matter what I catch.
I also would hope that if someone does catch that giant, it is someone like Brad that made it his goal and dedicated time toward that. So many times in muskie fishing though, there is no justice. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Brad P - 12/15/2016 8:47 AM I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track? I have a question on process: In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this. So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success? For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat? I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet. What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen. I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
My apologies, I couldn't let that misinformation just slide by unaddressed... self-control got the better of me.
I don't know about the 60" (I'd still like to see one on a bump board), but for giants I recommend fishing away from the masses in ultra low-density population lakes that have the right pedigree for a genuine queen. For instance, we logged hundreds of fall hours on Lake Belair just to catch a handful of muskies before the modern day record was caught there. Although we caught a couple nice ones, and we really-really enjoyed the solitude, we caught nothing that even approached the modern-day record of 58 pounds. However, I still feel a sense of great pride in the fact that I was able to pick that system off the map before it was discovered, and then maintain enough of a backbone to stick with it for several years. If you're considering this type of an endeavor, it was not unusual for us to go back-to-back 4-5 day extended weekends without as much as a sniff, so it's not for everyone... your not wasting time if you enjoy the hunt more than the catch.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/15/2016 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8720
| It all goes back to where you are as an angler. We all start out with our asses on fire. Buy this, buy that, fish here, drive there, flinging lures all over the place because you just want to catch a musky. Then you want to catch more of them. Then you want to catch bigger ones, and then big ones only. And then... you want to catch THE fish.
How does that change your approach?
For one, you gotta fish where she lives. That eliminates all but a handful of lakes. You gotta fish where she eats. That eliminates 90% of the water. You gotta fish when she's likely to be eating. Moonrise, the majors, frontal situations... That eliminates 90% of the day. And if it's a world record you're after, you gotta fish late in the fall, which eliminates most of the season.
That's not realistic for most, and it's a good way to be really disappointed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I'm going to go out on a limb here. First though, I believe that anyone fishing in the right waterbody has a chance to stumble into a super fish. When asked at my Vermilion Outing at Vermilion Dam Lodge in October about the 57-incher my grandson caught with me, my first comment was; "I have always said I'd rather be lucky than good." But, I also said, I do have 61 years of experience and did come with a game plan in mind and it paid off big!
So, not trying to toot my own horn, but rather headed toward something a bit different...I sincerely believe that there are a few muskie anglers out there that just have that something special when it comes to catching BIG muskies consistently. Their records confirm same, and while a rookie may stumble into the biggest muskie is a particular waterbody, the odds far favor those special few, MOST of whom are on the water nearly every day of the season, and especially during the part of the season (usually very late fall/early winter) when most muskies are at their heaviest weight of the year...length doesn't play that much of a factor at this time and often "normal" sized giants (low to mid 50's) can be of world record class and weight.
In the following cases, all of the anglers were experienced, but one was a bass fisherman; one was guided (the guide one of the best IS on the water all season long) and the third experienced and fishing hard at the right time of the season.
The Modern Day Muskellunge World Record of 58-inches long with a 29-inch girth and weighed 58-pounds Caught by Joe Seeberger (bass angler), had both length and weight, but another muskie caught by Ed Barbossa (guided) later that same fall weighed about as much but was only 54.75-inches long with a 30.50-inch girth. Our new MuskieFirst release World Record caught last fall by Dominic Hoyas (experienced) was 55-inches long with a 30-inch girth and calculated at 58-pounds by our new modified release formula.
BUT, the key to all three of the above examples was that these gentlemen were fishing in water with the genetic potential for world class muskies! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| So, does everyone just discount the claim made by Rich Clark of his 60" ? not stirring the pot. i remember reading about it 5 years or so ago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7010
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | tomcat - 12/15/2016 1:08 PM
So, does everyone just discount the claim made by Rich Clark of his 60" ? not stirring the pot. i remember reading about it 5 years or so ago.
For perspective on this fish: http://blog.syracuse.com/outdoors/2011/12/muskie_2.html |
|
| |
