Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> 60 3/4" Muskie ? |
Message Subject: 60 3/4" Muskie ? | |||
musky1969 |
| ||
Posts: 214 | All right lets hear the comments seen it on Facebook and another site caught fishing for Bass May 9th Little Sturgeon Bay there is a picture and long article if you look for it I have seen many giants up there bass fishing in May D | ||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Hard to say. I've seen the photo and it's hard to tell if it might be that long. Too bad they didn't take a picture with the thing laying on a flat surface with a tape measure laying alongside it. I've been told that muskies in Green Bay don't get that large though, so I'm pretty skeptical... TB | ||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32761 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | An excellent stand to take, actually. | ||
Musky_Mo16 |
| ||
Posts: 735 Location: Apparently where the Muskie aren't | Yep, wish people would hold something next to the fish (not 2 feet behind it) a can, bottle, rod, cooler, anything to help calculate the length | ||
raftman |
| ||
Posts: 514 Location: WI | Musky_Mo16 - 5/23/2017 8:39 PM Yep, wish people would hold something next to the fish (not 2 feet behind it) a can, bottle, rod, cooler, anything to help calculate the length I'm guessing the first thing they thought after releasing that fish was "Shoot! We didn't hold the coke can by it! The musky forums will not believe us." Nice fish. | ||
ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20173 Location: oswego, il | I will try and dig up my photo calipers i bought in hayward. That will clear up any confusion. | ||
Cfollow |
| ||
The guy must be 7 feet tall. The fish is five feet long and is being held a foot off the floor and looks to come a foot shy of the top of his head. I think he should put the bass rod down and hit the hardwood! | |||
bbeaupre |
| ||
Posts: 390 | well the article says 40lbs 60.75" and 28" girth. Doesnt add up. I fish that area all the time have yet to see a 60 and I have heard of at least 50 from bass guys. Must be fishing the wrong spots. | ||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Maybe you should start fishing with Bass guys? PS: Then call me, as I only live about 30 miles from there... | ||
4amuskie |
| ||
That would be a world record release!!! Finally one over 60" Congrats to the angler on this trophy catch!!! Call the MDWKRP | |||
jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | A fisherman lying about fish size?! No! Say it isn't so! | ||
Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 6995 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | If this becomes a rip on the angler fest because of the hold or the stated size...to the basement. 60" or 50" it's a great fish...even if it peees us muskie guys to see a lowly bass angler catch it! | ||
FEVER |
| ||
Posts: 253 Location: On the water | I don’t care what size it is. Congratulations on a great fish. The important thing is that he released it to fight another day. Good Luck to all, Tom. | ||
Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Cfollow: First, you cannot see how far the fish is off the floor; second, the tip of the fishes jaw is at least even with the top of the guys sunglasses; third, the fish is curled at the rear section making it look shorter than it really is. GIANT!!! and likely a completely spawned out female. Know of a 63 incher that was kept a few years back, caught at the end of June and weighed "only" 49 pounds. 60 inchers do exist...60 pounders not so much... | ||
muskyhunter47 |
| ||
Posts: 1638 Location: Minnesota | Where did you find the picture I would like to see it. Could so.e one post a link thank you | ||
thescottith |
| ||
Posts: 444 | Pic of that 63" would be pretty cool. | ||
Pepper |
| ||
Posts: 1516 | Musky Hunter site has a small picture of the guy holding hos fish. NICE fish | ||
Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Come on guys, we all know bass fishermen add 10" to every muskie they catch! | ||
4amuskie |
| ||
60.75 X 28.5 is over 60 lbs. Thats the formula. If you accept 60 3/4 then you must accept 28.5. And if it was spawned out it was even bigger. A true giant record fish. | |||
Propster |
| ||
Posts: 1901 Location: MN | Didn't the article say he measured the length with his fishing rod and marked a spot, and the girth with the drawstring of his pants? May be a possibility of an error or three there. | ||
Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | The 40# weight cited in the article is what threw me off. That seems light for the measurements given, especially the girth. But whatever, even if it wasn't 60" it is still a true GIANT. Congratulations to the angler. | ||
BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | well, it looks to be a lot closer to 60" than the fish that clown from Indiana tries to pawn off as 50s... | ||
Zib |
| ||
Posts: 1405 Location: Detroit River | Muskie Treats - 5/24/2017 11:00 AM Come on guys, we all know bass fishermen add 10" to every muskie they catch! ;) I thought their bump boards started at 7" ??? | ||
tkuntz |
| ||
Posts: 815 Location: Waukee, IA | Slamr - 5/24/2017 8:23 AM If this becomes a rip on the angler fest because of the hold or the stated size...to the basement. 60" or 50" it's a great fish...even if it peees us muskie guys to see a lowly bass angler catch it! ;-) I muskie fished during a bass tournament on Sunday and got one largemouth that would have weighed more than the biggest tournament fish. Nobody congratulated me | ||
Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | I looked at the one photo and read the article. What a great fish and nice job on tag teaming it to get her into the boat (the fish was caught out of season so release was mandatory). I enjoyed article and noticed that they borrowed a digital scale and tape measure from another boat, yet they also used a fishing rod and drawstring from a sweatshirt to measure it instead of the tape measure for unknown reasons. There is a conflict of about 20 lbs between the recorded measurement of 60.75 x 28.25 and digital scale weight reading of 40.1 lbs, and IMHO either one or the other is not accurate (or the weight formula that has been successfully used on thousands of fish should be thrown out). Again, IMHO considering these are tournament fisherman with a digital scale, the scale reading with the other boat nearby is probably more accurate than the measurements, especially considering the methods used to obtain the measurements. Further, the general look of the fish and known size favors the fish weighing about 40 lbs (digital scale) versus 60 lbs (measurements) considering how rare 60" muskies seem to be. With that said; it would be good to see additional photos if available, as well as the video mentioned in the article instead of just the 1 photo. He also mentioned of having a replica made, a reenactment picture with him holding the replica in the same position could be interesting. Either way; congratulations to the anglers on a great catch! | ||
slopmaster |
| ||
Posts: 77 | Well said BNelson | ||
MACK |
| ||
Posts: 1080 | BNelson - 5/24/2017 11:13 AM well, it looks to be a lot closer to 60" than the fish that clown from Indiana tries to pawn off as 50s... Fact. | ||
Rotorhead |
| ||
Posts: 157 Location: West Central WI | It amazes me how fast the line forms and how some people are quick to question all the things they should have done when they weren’t anywhere ready to catch a fish like this. I’m jealous, but they do deserve credit for what they did with what they had available to them. If they’d been out muskie fishing, and had the full complement of proper gear to document (especially bump board with photo of fish on it), then we’d have something we can discuss with better accuracy. A statement from those in the other boat would help too. The article clearly stated that the anglers borrowed the tape measure and scale from the other boat to record the details so I’m going to give them credit for reading the tape numbers correctly. Could they have lied? Maybe, but who has that proof and I’m uncomfortable trying to debunk what they claim if I don’t have proof otherwise. What they marked the pole for was “to get a feel for how long the fish was.” They didn’t say it was to get a mark for later measurement. The fish didn’t meet the formula weights so the bigger question to me seems to be the weight. Since the other boat had the scale, we’ll probably never know if it was subsequently tested with a known weight to see if it’s accurate. So – they did the best they could with what was available in fishing gear and measurements, they shared their story with us, and they aren’t trying to claim a record. Full credit to them. | ||
muskyhunter47 |
| ||
Posts: 1638 Location: Minnesota | Dam nice fish don't care how big it is I dream of a fish luke that every time I go out. Fish like that is what keeps me going | ||
Reelwise |
| ||
Posts: 1636 | It's not hard to believe a Muskellunge could reach 60 inches, guys. | ||
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |