|
|
Posts: 1275
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: 1184
| 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: 1275
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: 516
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: 309
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: 1275
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: 309
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: 2276
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: 309
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: 2276
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: 536
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 - 71 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: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | Yup, it was too good to be true |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
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: 1184
| 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: 1970
| Looks bigger than Louis Spray’s fish to me, I say we go with it!!!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
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: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 2
(output_image1701702867950(2).jpg)
Attachments
----------------
IMG_1220(1).jpg (23KB - 24 downloads)
output_image1701702867950(2).jpg (34KB - 26 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: 103
| 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
|
|
| |
