|
|
| Angling Oracle - 12/3/2023 5:57 PM
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.
Yes, without some point of reference, hard to judge. Saw some pics of my nephew and his wife on St. Clair this summer. Both are holding upper 40s fish. However, he is 6'2" with big hands. She is maybe 5'6" with small hands. Almost identical fish look much bigger when she is holding it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1135
Location: NorthCentral WI | 1st Pic > McNair's 57 x 33
2nd Pic > 55 x ? caught in 2009. The angler in this one must've been a short guy because in my opinion, it's one of the most impressive photos of all time.
Edited by MartinTD 12/4/2023 12:38 PM
Attachments
----------------
 dalemacnair3.jpg (38KB - 40 downloads)
TorchMuskie.jpg (51KB - 66 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | gimruis - 12/4/2023 12:00 PM
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.
I recommend you go and look at what's permitted with B & C / P & Y more closely. Yes, fair chase, but definitely not excluding legal other ways of taking animals outside of the traditional seasons:
https://www.boone-crockett.org/policies-bc-big-game-records-program
As far as "fairness / equality of access," we here in North America sort of used to just pulling up to a boat launch and going fishing - it is not like that in a lot of the world, particularly in Europe - lots of world records in the IGFA taken in exclusive type access waters.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/4/2023 1:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 166
| missourimuskyhunter - 12/4/2023 12:53 PM
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
Pics can be found here. Nothing has come close to that fish IMO.
https://www.musky.ca/worldrecordcatchreleasemuskiedalemacnair.htm
Edited by BillM 12/4/2023 2:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | [QUOTE/]BillM - 12/4/2023 2:54 PM
https://www.musky.ca/worldrecordcatchreleasemuskiedalemacnair.htm[/Q...
Definitely takes the cake in the girth department.
The Veiders musky photo gallery does show how the camera angle can really change size perception.
https://www.in-fisherman.com/editorial/worldclass-mega-muskie-from-l...
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/4/2023 4:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | McNairs fish certainly girthy in the middle, but small head and front and rear sections on the thin side.
Now that I'm off the nasty, cold water (yes C Nelson, many of us are still at it for awhile yet), I'll get on to the details of my two comparison photo's.
Photo one is a giant 58.5 (14.5 inch head) caught by my good friend Klaus Trieb shortly after recovering from a 9 week COVID coma.
Photo two is a 57 inch giant caught by good friend Will Wright. Will is 6-5 and weighs around 300
Some notable facts are both were August caught fish, both from the St. Lawrence River, and most importantly, NEITHER fish weighed 50 pounds let alone over 70!
The unidentified fish in the other post with pics was a former Michigan State record and weighed around 50 pounds.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/4/2023 9:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| Bad camera angles can only diminish the size of the fish so much. When you look at the amount of back end hanging over and the size of the head on some of those fish the length becomes apparent. Girth? Well... girths are often overstated. McNair's fish looks like it ate a football. I think it's safe to say that a true 70# fish would have a girth that carried through all the way from the shoulders to the tail, and the length to go with it. Big guys make big fish look smaller and vice-versa, but a fish of that caliber would be obvious no matter who was holding it and how bad the pictures were.
Simply put: Huge fish! 72#? Nope. Next...
Edited by esoxaddict 12/4/2023 10:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Back in the early 1960s, when catch and keep was the standard, my uncle took me to a sports shop in Eagle River. They had a variety of skin mounts on the wall but the one that was eye catching was a musky that was upper 40s in length and weight according to the plaque. That fish weighed more than a pound per inch and looked every bit of it.
The owner of the shop said he had never seen one quite like it. This was at a time where every sport shop had a glass topped freezer, displaying the catch of the week and guys competed for prizes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I would say that I would prefer the world record was caught with sort of the pedigree of having all the ducks in row and fishing intentionally for musky - eg. like what Veiders did with his 59.5 - so by deduction I am leaning a certain way with this one.
However sort of perplexed that if the fish is not of the dimensions and weight claimed that IGFA would even put up as pending given the application requirements:
https://igfa.org/world-record-application/
The form is pretty straightforward. Looks to me though would take a bit of a conspiracy to apply with a fish that was bogus - I suppose could happen (Larry, I'm sure you would know), but if any initial doubts would be silly (read: stupid) of IGFA to put as pending then have to retract on the basis of lack of proper vetting. I notice most of the world records (recent line class ones) that were pending and rejected are based on the line being of a strength generally higher than claimed (ie manufacturers strength), not where there was something nefarious done by angler.
Although Ontario may modify the "immediate release" rule in future to appease the CPR tournament crowd, it is in place, and the intent of the rule whether modified in future or not is still about the welfare of the fish - ensuring it is released in good health and survives. This is especially true of muskies and large muskies in Lac Seul. In fact, I don't think there is a fishery anywhere else in Ontario and for a species where this rule is more relevant in terms of conserving a specific segment of the population. The current rule with the word "immediately" has no ambuguity - immediately means now, not after going to shore and weighing, measuring, taking photos. That fish in my view (a fisheries biologist view) if even alive, needed to be released immediately. In fact, not even removed from water if possible. The water was coldish and thus well oxygenated then, yes, but not that cold - I was at a cabin on Abram Lake the following week (across from Winoga lodge), and we were swimming off the dock. Abram is a clear lake trout lake, not some back bay of Lac Seul where presumably a lot warmer.
The two results that would be acceptable outcomes, in my view, is that the fish was not the weight claimed and was released and survived, or was the weight and size claimed and caught by an indigenous angler legally. I don't think there are any other good outcomes; the former outcome being good for the fish and fishery, the latter being good for the angler and validating this management tool for trophy fish.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/5/2023 10:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have sent two more comp pics to Mr. Worrall to post when he can. Details later. Anyone care to estimate sizes?
Attachments
----------------
IMG_2852[7406].jpg (133KB - 27 downloads)
IMG_5991[7404].jpg (98KB - 37 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Top looks slightly longer and skinnier to me. I'd guess 57 x 25 for top and 55 x 27 on bottom. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Pretty absurd to think the Lac Seul fish is 72 lbs. The stated measurements would have to be correct AND the weight would have to overshoot the best available formula by nearly 15%. There's no good reason to believe either of those is true. His hand is in the picture for some visual reference - nothing about that girth appears even remotely close to 31.5.
The Sprengeler fish from Mille Lacs measured 57.75 x 29 and weighed just under 56 lbs. Somehow this fish, which is shorter, is supposed to have significantly wider girth and weigh 16 lbs more.
Edited by nar160 12/6/2023 12:44 PM
Attachments
----------------
sprengeler2.jpg (143KB - 68 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ Don't have many spotted fish here, but the first fish looks a bit smaller/younger based on the more defined spotting overall and in particular on the operculum. In both cases I would say sub-50 given relatively easily supported, with the bottom fish perhaps a few inches longer and an older fish given the more mature looking head and faded spotting on operculum. I'm basing this entirely on sort of how LOTW / Wpg River fish sort of fade out as they mature.
Pretty tough to judge if can't see the supported hands, where the fish is in relation to those holding it. That third dimension can make a lot of difference in size impression.
(fyi SCTV bit - not a musky clip): https://youtu.be/1R3G_beQccA?si=aPOm0NRt2kqolkun&t=43
What a 72 lber looks like, we'll have to see. The photo of the Lac Seul fish doesn't look like a massive fish, but it's one photo. Hard to believe, but... The hand on the peduncle does give the impression of a very large fish.
We will see what IGFA does. Not sure what to make of them. Interesting reading this:
https://www.musky.ca/wrma/IGFA_Decision.pdf
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/6/2023 5:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| Larry, I'm going to say 53" x 25.5" on the first fish and 54.5" x 27" on the second. 42.5# and 46# w/o using the formulas |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ok, three brave souls taking a shot at estimating my second set of comparisons. I think you will all be surprised! Fish number one was caught by me just last night, December 5, 2023 (yes C Nelson I'm still at it). It was only 47 inches long! No weight no girth. The second fish is also a December fish I caught two days before Christmas December 2022. It was a fat 51.5 that was in the low 40 pound range. No girth. Surprise!!
Thanks to nar 160 for posting the Spengler fish. It is likely the best true comparison to the Lac Suel fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Wow, that is very surprising indeed. To me the head on that first fish looks massive and the way it stretches across you guys it looks much longer than it is. I can believe the second fish, but I still think it looks bigger than it is! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| sworrall - 12/4/2023 11:01 AM
2
Thanks Steve nice pics and WOW |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 12/6/2023 9:26 PM
Ok, three brave souls taking a shot at estimating my second set of comparisons. I think you will all be surprised! Fish number one was caught by me just last night, December 5, 2023 (yes C Nelson I'm still at it). It was only 47 inches long! No weight no girth. The second fish is also a December fish I caught two days before Christmas December 2022. It was a fat 51.5 that was in the low 40 pound range. No girth. Surprise!!
Thanks to nar 160 for posting the Spengler fish. It is likely the best true comparison to the Lac Suel fish.
Congrats - both beautiful immaculate specimens. Not super surprised at those lengths, but really surprised your sidekick holding a great smile and not grimacing supporting the bulk of a 40+ pounder :). Definitely a fish holding pro. Good luck rest of the way! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4
| I'm going to bite here. I'm wondering why the fish that Rich Clarke guided a client to doesn't get talked about more often. The fish was reported at 60X29 and passes every eye test for me. Was there ever something that discredited the measurements with this one? Larry, maybe you could shed some light on it.
I put together an side by side comparison a few years ago that I thought was fairly emphatic. The Clark fish above was reportedly 60X29, the fish below was a verified kept 59 incher at 49 pounds. The two fish are very similar genetically, so they're kinda fun to compare. If the Clarke fish is actually an inch longer than the one below, I don't think it's a stretch to say that at the very least it was pushing sixty pounds.
I'm not sure how to attach pics. If the link below doesn't work, maybe someone can direct me how to do it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OWuLT04Fc4OIvJW6F-IzgurdCKaIpT7/vi... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Hey Garrett, long time. Sorry, my light is out re the size of the Clark fish. Certainly a fattie.
If indeed it was as claimed it would have been in the 60 pounds ball park.
My Modified Crawford formula would have it weighing about 61.6 pounds. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
| Speaking of heavy fish Steve Fuller of Bemidji MN. caught and kept a 49 pound fish with the measurements of (52 X 28 3/4)
on Sept 10 1990. The story of this fish is in the Feb/March 1991 Musky Hunter Mag. Only said it was caught in Ontario, it is to be believed to be a Lac Seul fish.
|
|
| |
|
| Looking at all the great pictures of really huge muskies, had a thought: What about AI?
Recently read an article about how AI can produce such authentic looking photos, without the source "document" you cannot tell it is not real. Some of the examples look like real people but they were purely imaginary from an AI program. Going back to the early part of the 20th century photographs were manipulated, often as a joke on a post card, etc. But, with the incredible technology already available and much more to come will photographs really have any value? If you have someone willing to lie and get a cooperating "witness"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: E. Tenn | North of 8 - 12/7/2023 9:46 PM
Looking at all the great pictures of really huge muskies, had a thought: What about AI?
Recently read an article about how AI can produce such authentic looking photos, without the source "document" you cannot tell it is not real. Some of the examples look like real people but they were purely imaginary from an AI program. Going back to the early part of the 20th century photographs were manipulated, often as a joke on a post card, etc. But, with the incredible technology already available and much more to come will photographs really have any value? If you have someone willing to lie and get a cooperating "witness"?
Nothing would surprise me anymore.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 561
| The 70 pounder looks like a 45 pounder IMO , that or its a terrible terrible photo . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 166
| They obviously used emotion to weigh that fish and not a scale. Ridiculous.
Edited by BillM 12/10/2023 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
| Out in the boat and in the weather and the welfare of the fish it can be at times hard to get a good photo. But if you kept it?
In the old days shoot a whole roll of film, and with digital? World Record? you could take hundreds unless your hiding something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Well, we seem to be at an impasse as no further information has been forthcoming, so I guess we will just have to wait and see what IGFA does. I suspect that if they don't accept the fish, based on my experiences with them as an IGFA Representative for 16 years, the information will simply disappear from their website and no further information will be forthcoming. It would be nice though, since this would be a such monumental occurrence in the muskie world of literally hundreds of thousands of muskellunge anglers worldwide who are affected, if IGFA did explain why it wasn't accepted. That they posted it as "pending" on their website was curious and if not accepted I believe they owe us an explanation. In addition, if they do accept the fish, it would be nice if they made all the details and additional photos available for all to see.
This morning I checked with the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to see if this fish had been submitted to them. It has not. They did receive a call concerning entering the fish, but the caller, who said he wasn't the catcher and was a bit sketchy with information, was inquiring for said person. The Hall director told him that Lac Suel was a catch and release only lake and so the weight, which the caller was also sketchy about, wouldn't matter and that the fish could only be considered in the release category.
As for the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record program (modernmuskierecords.org), as Chairman of the program, I can assure you that there has been no inquiry for said fish.
So folks, it appears that we will have to be patient and see what develops. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 12/11/2023 11:59 AM
That they posted it as "pending" on their website was curious and if not accepted I believe they owe us an explanation. In addition, if they do accept the fish, it would be nice if they made all the details and additional photos available for all to see.
This morning I checked with the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to see if this fish had been submitted to them. It has not. They did receive a call concerning entering the fish, but the caller, who said he wasn't the catcher and was a bit sketchy with information, was inquiring for said person. The Hall director told him that Lac Suel was a catch and release only lake and so the weight, which the caller was also sketchy about, wouldn't matter and that the fish could only be considered in the release category.
As for the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record program (modernmuskierecords.org), as Chairman of the program, I can assure you that there has been no inquiry for said fish.
So folks, it appears that we will have to be patient and see what develops.
Thanks Larry, for looking into some more. Glad the director there sort of set the situation straight there. I undertand that the Jacobson Lac Seul musky was pending with them as well, and disqualified either by iffy measuring or assisted catch (that latter of which I tend to agree with Jacobson in the fish technically landed). The reality is that Jacobson abided by the Lac Seul release rules as they were intended, whereas this latest fish certainly in my view has not (contingent on not a rights-based angler).
The InFisherman narrator even uses the word "promptly"
https://youtu.be/LPSChkufrdg?si=R28grRgVYyJaqEqP&t=53
It's not like the IGFA can't just give a competent musky authority such as yourself, Gord Pyzer, the OMNR district fisheries manager a call. Or read this thread.
It's also not as though the IGFA doesn't have paid staff and funds to pay to get controversial records right (although pretty light on dishing out consulting fees considering they are in theory a world record authority):
https://igfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019-Financials.pdf
I get they are probably a billfish clique, but they better not get this wrong.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/12/2023 10:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Here is the abstract from "Assessing Sustainability of Trophy Muskellunge Fisheries" by Casselman et al. 1996
It is the rationale why the catch and release rule was put in place in Lac Seul - the recruitment of new fish to replenish fish lost to fish being kept or bad handling is not sustainable in Lac Seul. We don't have stocking (nor should we). Lac Seul has a very low density of muskies, ergo it is super vulnerable to a rapid decline in large fish over time due to fishing mortality and hence a immediate release, zero keep rule was implemented. Every fish counts, thus someone bungling around weighing a fish that should be immediately released is frankly illegal (if done by a non-rights based angler). I guess we will see what this Lac Seul fish was...
"Sustainability of trophy muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) fisheries was examined from data collected from more than 78,000 muskellunge caught by Muskies Inc. members over a 24 year period from 1971 to 1994 as well as from more than 2,400
trophy muskellunge caught over a 16 year period from 1979 to 1994. The latter is a subset of fish mounted by taxidermists who have submitted cleithral bones to the Cleithrum Project. Over the past two decades, voluntary catch-and-release as practised by organized muskellunge anglers has helped maintain the average length, weight, and age of trophy muskellunge. A simple predictive relationship makes it
possible to estimate mortality of trophy muskellunge populations by using observed maximum age. Average annual mortality rate of trophy muskellunge populations
ranged from 16% to 26%; this corresponds to a maximum age of 26 to 16 years. Cleithrum Project data indicated that over the past 16 years, average maximum age of trophy muskellunge may have decreased by two years (23 to 21), associated with
an increase in annual mortality rate from 18% to 20%. This 2% increase in the annual mortality rate of trophy muskellunge in the 21 to 23 age range is comparable to a decrease in recruitment of about 70%. To compensate for a 2% increase in mortality of the largest, oldest trophy muskellunge in the 25 to 30 age range, recruitment would need to be doubled. Harvest reduction and catch-and-release precedures, which reduce mortality, are easier and more effective ways of sustaining or increasing the numbers of trophy muskellunge than trying to supplement recruitment through stocking. Excessively large year classes are required to produce very old, large trophy muskellunge, and if the quality of muskellunge fisheries is to be maintained in the presence of increased angling pressure, handling mortality associated with catch-and release must be minimized."
I'm putting this up so perhaps someone from IGFA can peruse if they are wondering about what the intent of the regs are in this situation.
"...handling mortality associated with catch-and release must be minimized."
In the case of Lac Seul, that means immediate release...
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/12/2023 12:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
| IMO this fish is not a 70,nor even a 60 lber.
AO while the 'ratiionale' for the Lac Suel Catch/Release reg was as stated by Casselman in 1996,the 'science' at the time was not as detailed or clear and certainly not as well summarized.In the immediate background was the Wabigoon fiasco which had demonstrated pretty clearly at that point how quickly a fishery could be devastated.A bunch of us 'oldies' early on realized what was happening and acted to try prevent a repeat of 'Wabigoon'.Many involved at that point were US citizens.Many wrote letters and/or met with MNR people to encourage and assist in implementation of the new
regs.Many of the same people assisted in 'tagging' and other action/research to support implementation.This included a number of US experts such as Larry but also US fish biologists such as Bob Strand,Norm Haukos and others.There was criticism at the time that supportive info was 'rushed' and lacking but.IMO,really not so and certainly was necessary and justified.
Just pointing out that what seems so clear and obvious now,wasn't then.A big thanks to Larry and all involved for getting it done! |
|
| |
