Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> 60 3/4" Muskie ?
 
Message Subject: 60 3/4" Muskie ?
tkuntz
Posted 5/24/2017 4:36 PM (#862738 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 815


Location: Waukee, IA
My thoughts are this; they didn't claim it to be anything. They said the measurements we're APPROXIMATE using things bass anglers would have in their boat. It's a heck of a big fish, and they let it go. Kudos to them
25homes
Posted 5/24/2017 4:50 PM (#862745 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 983


that is a huge fish either way....Dont see why lie about a fish your not claiming is any type of record seems he had no idea what he really caught til after the fact and it says he measured the fish on his fishing rod so you would think it would be fairly accurate if you can use a tape measure
Reelwise
Posted 5/24/2017 4:56 PM (#862746 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 1636


Here is a link to a picture of the fish if anybody missed it...

http://www.muskyhunter.com/musky-matters/bass-angler-boats-60-inch-...


Stealthski
Posted 5/24/2017 5:38 PM (#862749 - in reply to #862738)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 27


Location: Badger State
There are a few comments in this thread that indicate the writers, who are getting all technical on the details, are either misreading the article, or making misleading claims against the anglers. They did say they borrowed the tape and digital scale from the other boat to “get the details” (their words).” I know rulers that are shorter, but every tape I’ve seen, and the one I carry on my boat, are long enough to accurately measure the fish – why lie? Especially when the other boat is there. They used the pole mark to get a feel for how big the fish was (their words) and I can imagine they stood next to that after all was said and done. Somebody said the measurements were approximate – that word or even suggesting anything was approximate was NOT in the article. Why make that up in a critique of this story? Things happen fast in situations like this so I can’t criticize using the sweatshirt drawstring vs. using the tape measure. I’m sure it was a bit stressful getting what they did done and getting the fish successfully released was on their mind. I also don’t think they tried to manipulate the hold to try and make the fish larger in the photo. The one arm is held close to his body and the guy’s height isn’t known for reference. Too many unknowns to put anything down on these guys who had a day all of us dream about.
esoxriebe
Posted 5/24/2017 6:06 PM (#862750 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 95


52"-55" green bay fish weigh 38-42 pounds in July. I also have a hard time believing this fish spawned already almost every fish caught on opener in green bay have spawning scars and from my past experience fishing this area the muskies in little sturgeon probably still have not spawned this year. It really is a giant fish that anybody would be happy to catch. my grandfather always used to say never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Sidejack
Posted 5/24/2017 6:10 PM (#862751 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 1077


Location: Anoka
That photo doesn't look alerted in anyway. If you enlarge it you can't even see any trace of photo-shopping an enlarged fish back into the original picture.
TrebleHook
Posted 5/24/2017 6:18 PM (#862752 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




if it helps the guy is 5'6" with heels on
otto
Posted 5/24/2017 6:52 PM (#862754 - in reply to #862752)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 47


Bass guys always overestimate everything over 24". Even at that, I couldn't find the article/pic very easily so I gave up. Big fish? Most likely. Near WR? Whatever. Go for it guys/gals. I just like to fish and value every creature that finds the end of my line.

Except the 20# snapper that peeled of my partners minnowbait to hammer my bucktail..... But that's another story.

Pike Master
Posted 5/24/2017 9:15 PM (#862764 - in reply to #862677)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 293


Location: Sakatchewan,Canada
Larry Ramsell - 5/24/2017 8:55 AM

Cfollow: First, you cannot see how far the fish is off the floor; second, the tip of the fishes jaw is at least even with the top of the guys sunglasses; third, the fish is curled at the rear section making it look shorter than it really is.

GIANT!!! and likely a completely spawned out female. Know of a 63 incher that was kept a few years back, caught at the end of June and weighed "only" 49 pounds.

60 inchers do exist...60 pounders not so much...

Even you will admit Williamson's fish was over 60lbs... come on Larry!
esox911
Posted 5/24/2017 9:40 PM (#862766 - in reply to #862736)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 556


Its a VERY BIG fish--- I will take the angler at his word of 60" He doesn't seem to have anything to gain by lying. It is BIG for sure---- Congratulations on a true Giant Musky-- Released--can't complain about that. Many, Many BIG SKI's in the BAY--- Lots of 52-54" caught in any given year--- I could see a 60 coming out of there-- so that again makes it very believable to me.
Larry Ramsell
Posted 5/25/2017 6:08 AM (#862773 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 1275


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Pike Master: I didn't say 60 pounders didn't exist, I just said "...not so much.", meaning they are RARE! I believe Williamson's fish was legit and over 60 pounds...OK?
Jeff78
Posted 5/25/2017 6:40 AM (#862775 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 1660


Location: central Wisconsin
Nice fish, kudos to the angler.

Maybe all the doubting John Doe's on this board would be happier if he had killed it for better length and weight measurements?
Junkman
Posted 5/25/2017 8:06 AM (#862779 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 1220


I think I like being a member of this group, but sometimes not so much! Are we really so "wised up" and expert or are we just full of something else...something that smells like a horse's behind? Sure looks like that! My comment, "Great fish, congrats, I've never come close, that's a fish of a lifetime, Udaman!!
Glaucus_
Posted 5/25/2017 8:21 AM (#862781 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 135


Funny how if someone says 60" the world falls apart, but if it was 58" everyone would say "wow" instead. I suspect there could easily be 2" of measurement error possible in their methods. But ultimately, who cares? Big female that every single one of us would like to catch - and it was released. Awesome!

The bass angler who caught this fish was interviewed last night during a Facebook Live episode of Bob Mehsikomer's new show called "Fishnstix TV." Tournament bass fishermen from Illinois, fish was caught up shallow in Little Sturgeon on a small jig using 8lb braid after an extended fight. The angler sounds more excited and amused than anything, definitely not trying to make a claim to gain attention. The interview describes their measurement methods, includes good pictures, and discusses the hopefully soon-to-be-released video.

The interview begins at the 1:02:00 mark and runs through 1:15:00.
https://www.facebook.com/FishnStixTV/videos/1916322435316791/



Edited by Glaucus_ 5/25/2017 8:22 AM
Pike Master
Posted 5/25/2017 9:16 AM (#862784 - in reply to #862773)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 293


Location: Sakatchewan,Canada
Larry Ramsell - 5/25/2017 6:08 AM

Pike Master: I didn't say 60 pounders didn't exist, I just said "...not so much.", meaning they are RARE! I believe Williamson's fish was legit and over 60 pounds...OK?

Sounds fair. On the other hand, the fish being discussed here is neither 60" nor does it support a 28" plus girth... I am guessing the people that believe those specs also believe in Spray's records...
Fish4muskie
Posted 5/25/2017 10:18 AM (#862788 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 112


Location: Illinois
That's a great fish either way. They didn't seem to be worried about the actual "facts" for some record or "financial"acclaim. Just some boys who caught a fantastic fish.
Boogerb2
Posted 5/25/2017 10:24 AM (#862789 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 6


What a great fish and a great video! As Junkman says above, I'm always amazed at the negativity. So let's set up a scenario. I'm from Illinois and I'm going to drive up to GB and fish for a 50" musky while claiming to be fishing for smallies. When I catch this 50" I'm planning on claiming it is a SIXTY! Just to make everyone mad. Come on guys. Could there be some error in their measuring? Of course there could be. It could be shorter or longer. Give them credit. They certainly are not out there trying to catch a record. Let them enjoy their incredible luck!
tcbetka
Posted 5/25/2017 6:07 PM (#862819 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Location: Green Bay, WI
At the risk of irritating the masses, here's how I feel about the whole "critical of muskie pictures on the Internet" dilemma...

If you post a picture of a large musky on the Internet, or *allow* your picture of said musky to be posted, and you are claiming that it's something like 60-3/4 inches, then you are claiming a certain level of precision. Therefore you are inviting scrutiny. In my world, if I make a claim that some C++ code I write executes (runs) at 75% of the speed of the old version, then I had better be able to prove it. It's not even a thing about doing it for money--it's about making a claim while citing a specific level of precision. I need to furnish empirical data to support my claim. And the stated length of 60-3/4 (60.75) inches is a VERY precise measurement. It's to the hundredths place. Had they said something like this:

Although we didn't have a tape measure that long, we estimated the length of the fish to be about 60 inches...

Then I'd be like...wow NICE FISH! And I'd leave it go at that. But when someone makes a claim that the length is "60-3/4 inches" with a girth of 28 inches or so, but then cites a weight that doesn't support those measurements (at least by the 3-4 accepted formulae that are floating around out there), then they're opening themselves up to criticism, IMHO. And that's the way it should be when it comes right down to it. I submit that we SHOULD challenge things that seem a little unrealistic. This isn't about envy, ego, arrogance or anything else like that--it's about being accurate in a claim that clearly has an INCREDIBLE level of significance within the sport. So it's really quite simple then: If you don't want to be subjected to that level of criticism (ie; scrutiny), then don't post a picture of a very large fish with given dimensions that claim a level of precision not supported by the evidence you're providing in the photos you've furnished.

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything--and anyone who knows me knows that I really couldn't care less about your fish being bigger than mine. Hey, if you're a better angler than I am, that's great for you! But so what? I like that--because it keeps me motivated to go fishing. But then people shouldn't whine when folks are scratching their heads trying to figure out your stated measurements. Want to avoid that? Just post an image with the fish lying on a tape measure, and with said tape measure around the fish's belly. What, you didn't have such a tape measure? No problem--just don't make claims about the precision of the fish's size when you can't substantiate it.

TB

EDIT: Note--I have no idea whether or not the fish pictured in this thread is truly over 60" in length. As I stated in my earlier posts...there's just not enough information given to speak on that, one way or the other. The statements in this post are simply my attempt to justify people being critical of such claims regarding fish size (with poor documentation of such).

Edited by tcbetka 5/25/2017 6:19 PM
ToddM
Posted 5/25/2017 6:36 PM (#862820 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 20173


Location: oswego, il
I dont believe the angler posted the picture of the fish on this site even though it was written about publicly. It is a huge fish. It seems to have been measured with some level of inaccuracy. Is it that big a deal? Its not like the guy from indiana who is entering a fish of suspect dimension in a contest. I would bet if the angler knew the scrutiny he would come under, he probably would have released it and shut his mouth. I doubt it really matters to the angler if it was 60 3/4, 60 1/4 or 59 1/2.

Edited by ToddM 5/25/2017 6:38 PM
tcbetka
Posted 5/25/2017 7:44 PM (#862827 - in reply to #862820)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Location: Green Bay, WI
Then I would submit that's what he(they) should have done. Did you listen to the interview he did on Bob M's show?

Like it or not, we live in a "prove it" society boys and girls. Despite the #fakeNews hashtags being thrown around in mainstream media these days, we really DO need to provide objective data to substantiate our claims. At least that's one way we could avoid all the seemingly endless debate our society seems to be having these days.

It's very simple really: You assert something? Then prove it. Or don't make the claim. If you do make the claim, then you invite scrutiny..and that's the bottom line. And by the way--the angler IS in fact giving interviews, and is stating the purported length, girth and weight. So there's that.

Just my $0.02 though of course, YMMV.

TB

ToddM
Posted 5/25/2017 7:51 PM (#862828 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 20173


Location: oswego, il
He is not seeking interviews. The interviews are seeking him. I did not hear the interview. Unlike your job, my job where we have to be accurate because there is company money on the line, there is nothing at stake here.
tcbetka
Posted 5/25/2017 8:07 PM (#862831 - in reply to #862828)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Location: Green Bay, WI
The angler can always say "Sorry, I don't want to do any interviews." But he's basically painted himself into a corner here when it really comes down to it--because he did the first, and submitted some rather precise dimensions that were gathered in an imprecise fashion. So now what can a guy do?

But my point here was that we shouldn't make this a big argument where people are criticizing people who are critical of some dimensions that look to be inconsistent with the stated size of the fish. It's a #*^@ed BIG fish. Personally, I would just have preferred he said it that way and left it at that...instead of measurements that convey a degree of precision and accuracy that cannot be supported by the evidence presented.

So we disagree, but I certainly respect your opinion.

TB
Jeff78
Posted 5/25/2017 9:18 PM (#862853 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 1660


Location: central Wisconsin
I would think they meant 60 3/4 inches. You make it sound like this fish was described to the thousandth of an inch. Jeez, talk about over analyzing.
raftman
Posted 5/25/2017 9:41 PM (#862866 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Posts: 514


Location: WI
Come on. What would be the harm in just taking an extra 2 minutes to triple check all your measurements? Maybe get a couple good horizontal hold pics with the fish held out at a variety of distances too.
tcbetka
Posted 5/26/2017 6:27 AM (#862897 - in reply to #862853)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Location: Green Bay, WI
Jeff78 - 5/25/2017 9:18 PM

I would think they meant 60 3/4 inches. You make it sound like this fish was described to the thousandth of an inch. Jeez, talk about over analyzing.


No...it was to the hundredths of an inch. Try to keep up.

The point is that they gave a relatively exact (precise) measurement using imprecise methods. That's may well be OK, but be prepared to substantiate your claim. Period. It really is that simple--no over-analysis required.

TB
VMS
Posted 5/26/2017 7:29 AM (#862905 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 3467


Location: Elk River, Minnesota
Hi Everybody,

Hope I'm not breaking any rules here, but this seems to be the paragraph in question... If I am, please remove this...

"Anglers in another boat who had watched the fight had a tape measure and digital scale, and let the anglers borrow it to record the details. Gensini said the musky had a 28 1/4-inch girth, and weighed 40.1 pounds on the scale before they released it. “We also marked the length of the fish on a rod. I just wanted to get a feel for how big the fish was. I even pulled the drawstring out of my sweatshirt to girth it, and cut it off at the girth,” Gensini said."

(Taken directly from the MH staff article posted on the website)

From what I see written, I see this as a decent measurement. One with a tape measure, then marking the rod length and girthing again with a string. As a mathematics instructor, I'd say from what I read in the article they did a good job of measuring being in a pinch and not working with a fish of this caliber with regularity. The drawstring used as a girth measurement would be close...but not perfect...but I will err on the side of benefit of the doubt and say they did a good job on things. Even though they are getting interviews, etc....so what...let them enjoy it. The fish is still swimming, they are happy fisherman, they are not claiming any record, and it's a great fish.


With that being said...I say... Great fish!! Great Job!!, Enjoy the memory!! CATCH IT AGAIN!!


Steve





Edited by VMS 5/26/2017 7:52 AM
ToddM
Posted 5/26/2017 7:37 AM (#862908 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 20173


Location: oswego, il
I am sure if they were seasoned musky fisherman or entering the fish as a matter of record they would have realized the scrutiny of they're measurements. They are guilty of accurately measuring an imperfect method. I believe the intent was to be as accurate as they could given what they had. I doubt they realized how much hype it would recieve in the musky world. I do not know if bass guys analyze pics of 25"+ bass the way muskie fisherman do 50"+ muskies, maybe thats the problem.

Edited by ToddM 5/26/2017 7:42 AM
tcbetka
Posted 5/26/2017 8:21 AM (#862913 - in reply to #862908)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Location: Green Bay, WI
ToddM - 5/26/2017 7:37 AM

I am sure if they were seasoned musky fisherman or entering the fish as a matter of record they would have realized the scrutiny of they're measurements. They are guilty of accurately measuring an imperfect method. I believe the intent was to be as accurate as they could given what they had. I doubt they realized how much hype it would recieve in the musky world. I do not know if bass guys analyze pics of 25"+ bass the way muskie fisherman do 50"+ muskies, maybe thats the problem.


Great post Todd...I concur. My only point is that we shouldn't get down on folks for being skeptical of such catches, when there is 1) inadequate documentation of 2) pictures that don't appear to substantiate the stated size.

Was this a 60.75" fish? I have no clue. I hope it was--because I fish out there! But I can't tell it from the evidence presented, and since the 60" mark is pretty much the holy grail in our sport...I'd like to see it documented a little better.

TB
Jerry Newman
Posted 5/26/2017 8:34 AM (#862915 - in reply to #862913)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?




Location: 31

I became very excited when I saw the 60 3/4" measurement as well because it implies a very precise measurement was taken.  I've been patiently waiting for a well documented 60" for about as long as a well documented 60 lber (and I'm still waiting).  

This does not mean I don't believe they exist, but please forgive me if I'm not gushing over this latest claim either because like Tom, I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of accountability if you put it out there. If you find this statement to be negative, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, same as anyone else provided they're not out of line.

With that said; I wholeheartedly agree that this was a great fish and some congratulations are in order, but I also stand by my earlier statement of: 

“There is a conflict of about 20 lbs between the recorded measurement of 60.75 x 28.25 and digital scale weight reading of 40.1 lbs, and IMHO either one or the other is not accurate (or the weight formula that has been successfully used on thousands of fish should be thrown out).” 

I see nothing wrong or negative about this because it's either a 60lb class muskie if you choose to believe the measurements, or it's a 40 lb class muskie if choose to believe the scale… you can believe one or the other, (or both if you want) but IMHO there is a high probability of one being more reasonable than the other.

Here's a fish with a well documented 28” girth… which fish would you rather catch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7HZXWfLgO8

ToddM
Posted 5/26/2017 8:37 AM (#862916 - in reply to #862595)
Subject: Re: 60 3/4" Muskie ?





Posts: 20173


Location: oswego, il
I think it would have been great to know the precise measurements of the fish. Seems like ot of fish this size are not measured in a way we would like to see cor accuracy. What is interesting too this fish has recieved more scrutiny than the 60" lac suel fish caught 10+ years ago that became the MI big fish release that year. This fish appears bigger than that one.

Edited by ToddM 5/26/2017 8:38 AM
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)