Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> 72 pounds 2 ounces New Double Holy Grail??? |
| Message Subject: 72 pounds 2 ounces New Double Holy Grail??? | |||
North of 8 |
| ||
| When the term 'immediate release' is used, is that enforced literally? Sometimes it helps to hold a fish in the water, upright until it recovers for example. A few years back, I caught a low 40 fish after dark. My son netted it and I got the hooks out quickly but before I could take it out of the net, it lunged and slammed against the side of the boat. Basically knocked itself out. I got it out of the net, held it upright and my son ran the trolling motor, with the fish facing forward. After about 100 yards, the fish revived and swam away very strong. That was a technique a veteran fisheries tech had told me about. They used it sometimes when netting fish for surveys. Had I just released it, I think it would have just sunk. | |||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | dickP - 12/13/2023 7:22 AM 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! Good stuff. Thanks for input on it, Dick, good to know some of the names behind it. I'm sure you are probably are one of the ones that pioneered fishing Lac Seul post Wabigoon based on reading between the lines in some of the contemporaneous In-Fisherman musky articles that you contributed to. There is also a "next big musky" or something similar article that gives all the history of the rise and rapid fall of Wabigoon. I'm not sure where I had seen the data or perhaps relayed in a podcast on Lac Seul, I believe it was sort of in that "worried" time period you are talking about where the catch rates of big fish started to decline fairly quickly once the word got out about Lac Seul. Reduction in CPUE was not necessarily related to mortality in Lac Seul, more likely avoidance by big fish (and I think this was also indicated by whoever was researching given most anglers were releasing them anyway), but nevertheless I believe the thinking was better to side on being precautionary since either way this implied a very small pool of big fish in Lac Seul to start with, and thus losing any would be detrimental to the fishery long term. Of course the rapid Wabigoon decline made being extra cautious a bit of a no-brainer. Realistically studying big muskies is difficult to impossible given it is an animal that is so rare and elusive. Any data is typically going to be observational or anecdotal, and you are going to need to rely on amateur folks in the field doing the observing (ie anglers). Stats are generally going to take a bit of a back seat when you can't generate a dataset of a size where you can do statistically significant tests - hence why the Casselman et al paper is so compelling. Don't know if you have heard Gord's podcast, but a bit of the Wabigoon and reg history there and he does mention the US-based concern being a factor as well in the changes: https://www.theuglypike.ca/podcast-blog/uglypike-s56r5-hyzgz-r52y6-y... Gord also makes a very valid point on who is killing the most muskies. We tend to sort take comfort in the fact that we personally release the majority of our muskies in a healthy condition - we don't really think about all the muskies caught by non-musky anglers that likely don't do so well. The OP by Larry suggest this Lac Seul musky may have been caught by a walleye angler - which would make the most sense of why are where we are with this fish, assuming the anecdotes have a basis in some fact. Edited by Angling Oracle 12/13/2023 12:55 PM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 12/13/2023 8:13 AM When the term 'immediate release' is used, is that enforced literally? Sometimes it helps to hold a fish in the water, upright until it recovers for example. A few years back, I caught a low 40 fish after dark. My son netted it and I got the hooks out quickly but before I could take it out of the net, it lunged and slammed against the side of the boat. Basically knocked itself out. I got it out of the net, held it upright and my son ran the trolling motor, with the fish facing forward. After about 100 yards, the fish revived and swam away very strong. That was a technique a veteran fisheries tech had told me about. They used it sometimes when netting fish for surveys. Had I just released it, I think it would have just sunk. Doesn't sound like you did anything wrong there and in fact doing the right thing. Note the intent of the reg is to release the fish healthy and unharmed, and so that was what you were trying to do. Taking a worn out musky to shore so you can weight it and measure it would be counterproductive to that intent. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Angling Oracle - 12/13/2023 12:34 PM dickP - 12/13/2023 7:22 AM 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! I'm not sure where I had seen the data or perhaps relayed in a podcast on Lac Seul, I believe it was sort of in that "worried" time period you are talking about where the catch rates of big fish started to decline fairly quickly once the word got out about Lac Seul. Reduction in CPUE was not necessarily related to mortality in Lac Seul, more likely avoidance by big fish (and I think this was also indicated by whoever was researching given most anglers were releasing them anyway), but nevertheless I believe the thinking was better to side on being precautionary since either way this implied a very small pool of big fish in Lac Seul to start with, and thus losing any would be detrimental to the fishery long term. Of course the rapid Wabigoon decline made being extra cautious a bit of a no-brainer. Further to - the study I recalled was the one by Paul MacMahon: The Lac Seul Trophy Muskellunge Fishery Abstract: "In recent years, Lac Seul, in northwestern Ontario, has been the site of a fast growing trophy fishery for muskellunge (Esox masquinongy). Concern about the sustainability-of this fishery prompted a catch-and-release regulation to protect the fishery while studies were initiated to investigate the status of the muskellunge population. Preliminary data indicates angler catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) declined by more than 50 percent in a three year period. Compared to other trophy musky populations, the fish are fast growing with a high theoretical maximum length. There is a possibility that despite the catch-and-release regulation, the trophy fishery may not be sustainable at recent levels of angling effort." An interesting read - preliminary report presented at the Managing Muskies in the '90s Workshop Proceedings - August 16-17, 1995. Edited by Angling Oracle 12/13/2023 4:55 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 72-2 UPDATE: HALL OF FAME: A few developments in the past two days. Yesterday the Hall of Fame received an application for this fish as a line-class world record. It will be considered for the Release Divison; Power Trolling, 50# category. It cannot be the All-tackle record as that is slot is occupied by a 62 (1/4) inch muskie caught in 1997, by Bill Craig from the Ottawa River. Obviously, no weight was noted. There were three photo's included; two very similar to the one on page 1 of this thread except the angler's heads were not cut off. Both were "slightly" different than the one posted and the fish did indeed look a bit larger. There was also a shot of the fish being released in the water beside the boat. Like the photo on page 1, it did not do the fish "justice". The length submitted was 57-inches "total length" (the IGFA measurement of 56.5 was a "fork length" measurement as required by IGFA). If one looks close at the photo on page 1, it is evident that there was very little "dip" from the tail tip to the fork; unusual in a fish that size, but not unreasonable. In a phone discussion with the witness, the Hall learned that the fish had been weighed on a Boga Grip type scale and it was checked against a "meat scale" after the fact. (Does that make it "certified"?). As an aside, I found it ironic that the angler Chris Olund, is from Sarona, Wisconsin, the same place Ted Haag, Louie Spray's fishing partner, resided. IGFA: Yesterday also, a bit of info came forth from the IGFA after an email inquiry from an interested angler desiring same. He shared his response with me. The IGFA respondent stated that they had ..."received all the documentation necessary and the application is currently pending". He stated that ..."While I cannot speak on the status of the application until I receive a final decision from the review committee, one of the requirements for submitting a world record is that the fish must be weighed on land. The fish in question was weighed on the boat which is cause for a disqualification."!! Hmmm, it would appear to me that he just put a nail in the coffin (so to speak) of this fish. There may be other rules that were not complied with, but nothing else was mentioned and may never be if the above disqualifies the fish in committee. The interested angler was advised that he would be notified of the official decision. It is unclear whether or not if denied All-tackle record status, the fish would be considered in a line-class category based on length alone. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I'm glad it was released, and perhaps in better condition than would have been the case if the scenario played out with walleye gear. Given this was a very impressive fish, and may well have been the heaviest musky ever caught by angling, it is unfortunate that such a fish could not be celebrated for what it represents - a validation of the musky regulations put on Lac Seul. If only that scale had not been brought on board to begin with, then perhaps it would have been. The rule is there for a purpose, there is no exceptions for Junior's first musky, Bill's PB, or the potential next world record. To provide some additional context, for those of you that haven't fished up by Sioux Lookout, it is a very unique area when it comes to regulations: there are sanctuary areas, permanent musky sanctuary lakes, and a no livewell rule for lakes around Sioux Lookout - ie if you want to keep a fish you have to put on ice, there is no upgrading. In other words conservation first, and the zero musky rule / immediate release has basically kept the musky population in as close to undisturbed size distribution as is possible on Lac Seul. If my best musky fishing buddy did the same thing, I would feel exactly the same way. As I said on other threads, I really like the zero keep rule as I believe it in the best interest of the naturally reproducing musky populations up here, and more specifically in the sympatric lake and river systems (coexisting with pike) which are typically where the biggest muskies reside. Huge muskies are few and far between, and we need to protect them to keep those genetics in the system as long as possible, and that means always releasing and in as healthy as possible condition. * note correction - sympatric (I had allopatric). I have allopatric on the brain given there seems to be pike menacing some of the allopatric lakes to the SW closer to Dryden area given how many tigers are showing up. Yes, tigers look cool, but not good for the future of those lakes. Edited by Angling Oracle 12/20/2023 10:24 AM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| The more I read about restrictions on handling from trophy waters and given the almost universal determination of musky folks to release all musky, is there really a purpose to having world record musky standards the in reality involve killing the musky? Maybe just call it a day, have some standards for catch and release records but nothing more? | |||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1184 | We had some really good sized fish in our boat over the years on our 1 to two week vacation and I spend some time looking for a giant or a Ghost of a fish that may not even exist. If I don't catch such a fish maybe it's a good thing. Sure is fun. | ||
| Smell_Esox |
| ||
Posts: 267 | I would say no way that fish is 70 pounds. | ||
| muskynate |
| ||
Posts: 74 Location: thunder bay | I guide up on lac seul and I seen more pictures of the fish then the one here. And it’s definitely a big fish. It was weighed on a scale in the boat which I was told was 71 pounds. The owner of the camp the guy was staying at which I’m friends with asked to see the scale knowing what they were saying about the size of the musky and weighed one of his workout weights a 45 pound and that’s what the scale said, so the scale was on. I don’t know I wasn’t in the boat or at the camp. That’s just some info that I was told. I’ll see if I can get some of the other pics for you guys. I definitely do know though it was a monster fish. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 72-2 UPDATE CONTINUED: Well, more information has surfaced, but not as quickly as I had first thought. Your faithful reporter has continued digging and has uncovered some additional new information regarding this fish both by inquiry and by me being contacted directly. Unfortunately, while I do have multiple new sources of information, none wishes to become involved directly. Although some of this new information is direct first person (at the resort at the time the fish was caught) and some is credible “hearsay” it all necessarily becomes “hearsay”. I thought long and hard about even posting this but if the fish is legitimate, it should stand any scrutiny. You will have to make up your own mind as to the validity of the information. I will comment where I feel it is appropriate: Info #1: The girth was NOT measured, a requirement by IGFA (Note: as noted below in #4, the only measuring devices they had was a small bump board and a 50” tape stuck to the gunnel of the boat). Info #2: They were told by multiple people not to post about the fish (Note: hopefully to minimize increased pressure on the lake!). Info #3: The tape they used went to 50 inches and the rest was estimated (Note: IGFA requires use of “their” bump board to measure length). Info #4: (Slightly different scenario than #3). They only had a small bump board (I’d guess a 24” walleye/bass size), but there was a 50” tape glued to the gunnel of the boat, so they pulled the fish alongside the boat, put their small bump board next to the tape and “eyeballed” length. Info #5: The scale used was a $20.00 handheld scale (Note: moot point if the scale is certified within one year previous or after the fact by IGFA rule-not acceptable in the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program). Info #6: One informant thought it …Interesting that they didn’t post the pictures of the fish hanging by the gills from the scale! (Note: since the catch and immediate release regulation is to protect the fish, especially trophy fish, it would be interesting to see how a Conservation Warden would rule on this. If a violation of “immediate release”, it would disqualify the fish as a “legal catch”, even for catch and release only categories). A final thought: If there are no photos of the fish on the scale showing the fish and the scale weight, should we accept the say so of “interested” witnesses and angler for this important world record; one of the three most important fish records in fresh water? In fact, should an All-tackle world record designation ever be given to a released muskellunge where no weight re-verification or stomach content examination can be made? A fish that must surely be at the end of its life span… | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/1/2024 12:15 PM Info #2: They were told by multiple people not to post about the fish (Note: hopefully to minimize increased pressure on the lake!). Info #6: One informant thought it …Interesting that they didn’t post the pictures of the fish hanging by the gills from the scale! (Note: since the catch and immediate release regulation is to protect the fish, especially trophy fish, it would be interesting to see how a Conservation Warden would rule on this. If a violation of “immediate release”, it would disqualify the fish as a “legal catch”, even for catch and release only categories). A final thought: If there are no photos of the fish on the scale showing the fish and the scale weight, should we accept the say so of “interested” witnesses and angler for this important world record; one of the three most important fish records in fresh water? In fact, should an All-tackle world record designation ever be given to a released muskellunge where no weight re-verification or stomach content examination can be made? A fish that must surely be at the end of its life span… # 2 is reassuring. I would suggest keeping mum is more the norm and there are many huge fish that are never revealed in the public domain. #6 - musky anglers with a scale on Lac Seul is like having a rifle with you during deer muzzeloader season - not justifiable. Your final thought - I don't think will be a WR based on those suppositions. Life span... Differ with you on this, Larry. A big old fish not necessarily near kicking the bucket. In a lake I worked on we had lake whitefish that were in their 40s and 50s (we thought they were maybe 12 - they weren't huge, just old fish). The science has changed on this. Fish do get a lot older than what historical type aging methods initially indicated and fish do not get reproductively senile (ie the old dry doe type scenario - which is also a myth). Fish size may pretty much max out in length but a fish may live for decades and only grow very slightly (putting most of the energetics into reproduction, not growth). This is one (of several) reasons why in Manitoba we have gone to the zero over rule for a wide range of fish. Bigger fish = more and bigger eggs = more nutrition for hatched larvae = higher survival rate. Hence why I like the zero keep rule in Lac Seul. Realistically Larry, in these times if a dedicated musky angler were to kill the world record intentionally, certainly the fish would be marveled at, but the angler probably would soon regret doing so. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/1/2024 5:37 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle: while a bit off topic, we will have to agree to disagree.. As for maximum age of MUSKELLUNGE I'll defer to Dr. Casselman, developer of aging by cleithrum and maximum aging of muskies (not whitefish). As for the keeping of an All-tackle world record muskie, we are talking about ONE fish, not a lake full! Muskie anglers deserve a legitimate, controversy free world record. Currently there is only one record keeping program that can assure that; Modernmuskierecords.org | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/2/2024 10:07 AM Oracle: while a bit off topic, we will have to agree to disagree.. As for maximum age of MUSKELLUNGE I'll defer to Dr. Casselman, developer of aging by cleithrum and maximum aging of muskies (not whitefish). As for the keeping of an All-tackle world record muskie, we are talking about ONE fish, not a lake full! Muskie anglers deserve a legitimate, controversy free world record. Currently there is only one record keeping program that can assure that; Modernmuskierecords.org For sure, Larry. Not really going to know until we get a tag return or some photo evidence or some really accurate aging what the maximum actually is. I can't argue with anything Dr. Casselman has done to this point, just that testing a null hypothesis on what the maximum age is for muskellunge is not really possible. As methods of accurate aging develop, probably a worthwhile exercise is to re-age some of the currently oldest know muskellunge. For everyone's benefit, fish aging structures are read like tree rings (in the case of pike/musky/pickerel - cleithrum most accurate=consistent among readers, anal fins/otoliths close, scales are relatively inaccurate). The issue with old fish is if the fish is actually growing, then a growth ring is put down, but if very little, or not at all, then readers are just putting the fish at that last significant growth ring. In general the biggest, older fish in a sample to be aged are probably all at their maximum size and not necessarily growing enough to put down discernable rings, and thus are almost always underestimated. Someone aging is not going to estimate older when there is uncertainty as of course going to be messy as far as whatever growth or mortality estimates they are using the data for. In the instance I am speaking of with whitefish, it was very important to get accurate ages given it was testing a hypothesis as to when these fish were recruited. The otoliths were aged using a computer assisted reader (this was in a lake trout lake just south of Minnitaki, a bit south of Lac Seul). Fast growing fish like muskies probably have a shorter lifespan, but maybe not as short as one would think, and perhaps a 57 inch female musky could spawn another 10 or 15 years. In the case of Lac Seul fish, we are not looking for that fish to just replace itself, it has to replace itself and the males it is spawning with, and given the low density of fish in Lac Seul, we want it to do even better than that. This is why this Lac Seul situation overhandling is particularly concerning and rightfully frowned upon given the intent of the regulation. I do hope the world record happens given it would be nice to get rid of these controversial records - I just hope it isn't up here in these natural spawning populations. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/2/2024 11:49 AM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle: Between this thread and the "Allopatric" thread you are painting two dire situations (real or imagined), for the muskie lakes in NW Ontario. Should you wish to continue this "no keep", basically "no handling" discussion I would ask that you combine it with the "Allopatric" thread and leave this one to the 72-2 discussion. IMO, you are dangerously close to advocating for NO muskie angling in NW Ontario at all when such factors as release mortality are factored in! | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/2/2024 2:05 PM Oracle: Between this thread and the "Allopatric" thread you are painting two dire situations (real or imagined), for the muskie lakes in NW Ontario. Should you wish to continue this "no keep", basically "no handling" discussion I would ask that you combine it with the "Allopatric" thread and leave this one to the 72-2 discussion. IMO, you are dangerously close to advocating for NO muskie angling in NW Ontario at all when such factors as release mortality are factored in! Roger that - over on the allopatric thread. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Further to on weighing. The wording very clear in this pamphlet: "It is unlawful to target a species during its closed season even if you intend to release it. Delaying the release of a fish for pictures or weighing is unlawful unless the fish can be legally kept towards your limit." https://files.ontario.ca/mnrf-catch-release-fishing-guidelines-angle... | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| So, as I read Oracle's last post, no matter how giant the fish may be, a world record fish could not come out of Lac Seul because you cannot keep a musky caught there and you can only weigh and photograph a fish that could be kept as part of your bag limit? | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NEWS FLASH: This fish has been removed from the IGFA website! Hopefully details why will be forth coming. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32792 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Interesting! | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NEWS FLASH CONT: Additional information has been learned from the IGFA: "I’m happy to shed more light on the catch now that the record has been officially rejected. The main determining factor behind the rejection was the fact that the fish was weighed on the boat and not on land. This falls under section 3 of weighing requirements under IGFA World Record Requirements: "3. No estimated weights will be accepted. With the exception of Junior and Smallfry records, fish must be weighed on land. "No photos were submitted of the length or girth measurements, which is certainly something that we would have requested verification on given the significance of the catch. With the fish being weighed on the boat we did not request those photographs." LR: Nothing was said about photos of the weighing or the weight on the scale, the MOST IMPORTANT part of an All-tackle World Record. More information is being requested. IGFA has shared a photo submitted; nearly the same photo as on page one, but the full picture and a slightly different angle. I'll send it to Mr. Worrall to add to this post. Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/9/2024 9:04 AM Attachments ----------------  image002[14162822].jpg (58KB - 25 downloads) | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32792 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Like my old friend Tommy Skarlis used to say, "It takes a #*^@ big dog to weigh a ton." | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | When you apply and your application not even complete, why even have as pending on a public website? Hmm.. Bullet 3 of the IGFA "weighing regulations", a subcategory, is a long way down from the very first IGFA disqualification: 1. The following acts will disqualify a catch: 1. Failure to comply with equipment or angling regulations. We've gone through the unambiguous release regulation, which we don't need to rehash. As per one of my earlier posts, the same reg would apply to undersize muskies caught in Ontario and any other Ontario species (if any others are IGFA records) that cannot be kept as part of one's limit - ergo these could not be legally weighed given not lawfully complying with Ontario angling regulations and therefore should not be accepted as IGFA records according to this first disqualifier. Will leave at that... Looks like a walleye rod and minnow bucket there, and a fish that has been hard fought. A bit more empathetic to the situation if it was walleye guys that caught this given the excitement of catch. Walleye guys and giant muskies seems to be a trend... Is it better than we know that the scale is accurate or inaccurate? Not sure... A release video or photo would be nice to see though. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/9/2024 1:05 PM | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1184 | When I originally saw the picture, my first thought was that it was caught by walleye fishermen with spinning gear. This picture confirms my suspicions. With those bloody fins and that fact that it was probably weighed hanging by it's gill plate, that fish is most certainly dead. No ill will to the anglers. No doubt they did not have any equipment or experience to deal with a fish like this. Their blood was pumping and they were freaking out. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1275 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | THOUGHTS; OPINIONS & FINAL WORD(?): THOUGHTS: This is the most bizarre handling of a potential All-tackle World Record Muskie EVER! Not only that, but it is also the heaviest potential record muskie ever “claimed” for record. Instead of shouting from the roof tops as most would do, these folks choose to keep the catch “secret”. When it was finally discovered on the IGFA website that it had been submitted as an All-tackle World Record and I started this thread things stayed bizarre when one of the “group” posted half a photo with only the comment “This is it. Picture does no justice”. No other information has been forthcoming from the “group” either here on this thread or when I made multiple requests of them directly and off the board. I guess their mantra is silence. OPINIONS: It would seem to me that someone making a “record claim” would be anxious to defend their position and provide as much information as possible to the public. Just the opposite is what is and has been taking place. Do they have something to hide? Have the comments regarding this fish on this thread “hit home” and they have no defense of them? Just what could it be that would keep someone from providing all possible evidence of their “claim”. Bizarre indeed! FINAL WORD(?): Short of these gentlemen coming forward and presenting all of their supporting documentation and photographs that does indeed support their claim, I personally believe it has all been sham. No proof; no documentation; no photo’s, NO record! | ||
| 7.62xJay |
| ||
Posts: 480 Location: NW WI | Hey Larry since you've been in continued contact with the IGFA on this subject. Would you mind inquiring with them ; "On average how many record submissions do they receive per year for Pike and Musky?" I'm genuinely curious but also I'd hypothesize that that answer may provide a shred of insight to this submission. Those who don't know, simply don't know, excited over an accidental Titan of a catch (whether it is or isn't, it is to them) in a blur of excitement and likely limited equipment-they kinda measure, they kinda weigh, and they kinda photograph, and than submit hoping for the best. Can't blame em Please if you do ask, let us know their answer on this thread. Thank you | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1184 | A few things to consider if you have a very large fish in your boat or by your boat and getting a proper measurement and picture. If there's two or more experienced fishermen in the boat is a starting with quality equipment including a large net and proper release tools and someone having good camera and yes a way to measure the fish. (in this day and age we have bump boards or 60" floating rulers, clothe tape measure for girth ECT and smart phones with a camera) That is huge from everything someone to land the fish, more then one set of hands to remove hooks, more then one person to control the fish for a good measurement and someone who knows how to take a good photo. So we fish bodies of water that have a history of producing giant fish. We have caught large fish and seen some real monsters. But I would guess my boat has never been in casting distance of a record fish. Or driven over one. So if your fishing by yourself, can you work a large net big enough land a record fish ? I guess you could hand land it or beach it. Control the fish by yourself? Or if it's hooked badly can you remove the hooks with one set of hands? Can you even see both ends of the ruler when fishing by yourself and trying to measure a long fish let alone a record fish? If you are on a large body of water or out in crappy weather chances there are going to be no one to help. So if you want a record fish with friends. Or if you want to keep it Wack it and bring it in and hope that it is as big as you think it is. Things go bad fast when a non Muskie hooks the monster most the time they get away thru broken lines or no way to get them in the boat. But I think a lot of these giant fish are caught out of season in Ontario with the late June opener. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | 7.62xJay - 1/13/2024 6:57 PM Hey Larry since you've been in continued contact with the IGFA on this subject. Would you mind inquiring with them ; "On average how many record submissions do they receive per year for Pike and Musky?" I'm genuinely curious but also I'd hypothesize that that answer may provide a shred of insight to this submission. Those who don't know, simply don't know, excited over an accidental Titan of a catch (whether it is or isn't, it is to them) in a blur of excitement and likely limited equipment-they kinda measure, they kinda weigh, and they kinda photograph, and than submit hoping for the best. Can't blame em Please if you do ask, let us know their answer on this thread. Thank you I kinda of don't agree with you at all on this one. Blur of excitement is like the first minute in the net, after that it is all deliberate for whatever reason. These aren't 12 year olds or clueless millennials/Gen z'rs When I say "a bit more empathetic" what I mean is if these were walleye guys, when it comes time to whatever charges or fines forthcoming, would be a bit more accepting of claim of ignorance - none at all if musky guys. Just look at the IGFA records. If you want one, go and get one - the 30, 50, 80 lb test records are open with probably a pretty reasonable low minimum qualifier. Probably useful for marketing a lure or something, I don't know. If anyone is musky fishing because they care what other's opinions are of them and want a WR line class record for that, they can have at it - I think most people fish for muskies in general for internal gratification and achievement, with a very small minority musky fishing for commercial interests (making a living at it), and this latter segment may find these IGFA records useful for promotion. The Lac Seul guys messed up badly (reputation wise) and picked the wrong fish to do it with IMO - especially after being given really good advice about keeping it on the DL. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/14/2024 12:36 PM | ||
| 7.62xJay |
| ||
Posts: 480 Location: NW WI | I hear ya, I wasn't speaking of these 2 guys in specific. But what I'm questioning is how many times something like the following takes place: Lets say father and son both inexperienced anglers, first vacation, first accidental musky, their eyes the size of saucers and underwear no longer white, mail out a submission not filled out to the "T". The IGFA would either have to disregard the application or inquire more with the angler to complete it where there is lack of information/proof, I would assume. I haven't any idea what "Alot" of submissions would be, 30? Maybe? Certainly 100 in my mind would be outlandish. That's why I'd like to know. May give us better insight. And yes, nowadays with the ability to share information quicker than ever and Ego's having high importance with everbodys internet persona or whatever you'd like to call it, I don't doubt that the IGFA has dealt with foul play and will continue to. As far as what you said about open classes and marketing, yes certainly a record attributed to your company's equipment or viewership is a financial incentive to chase. But wouldn't that violate the Affidavit? | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ I certainly wasn't up on what the forms required until this Lac Seul fish came up. Once I read them I actually tended towards giving the weight and dimensions of the fish more credibility given submitting a signed affidavit on oath is a very serious undertaking. To lie under oath is covered under Section 131 of the Criminal Code here in Canada and there is a warning about it in every witness statement made to police to deter folks from lying. Now it turns out not a Canadian who caught it and IGFA not a Canadian entity, but would be foolhardy to sign an affidavit anywhere I think if you know what you are swearing an oath to is false. Not saying that is what happened here at all; on the contrary, hard to believe that the info submitted would be false as would be very imprudent to do so. Sort of a long-winded point being that you pretty much need to be well prepared when you are attempting to get one of the line-class records or release records - you need to have a lot of things prepped in advance for the line class ones and the IGFA measuring tape for the release ones, and of course sign these affidavits under oath. The all tackle weight records you basically need a dead fish as per Larry's comments (or know you need to weigh on shore with an IGFA certified scale). So there are probably very few record submissions by folks just going at it ad hoc. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/14/2024 5:39 PM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |