|
|
| Perhaps Mr. Ramsell could comment on whether there really any value today in trying to determine a "world record musky". When you have bodies of water like Lac Seul, where you cannot legally keep a musky and the record standards demanding a dead fish, how can you truly say a fish is the biggest?
Was watching a fishing show last winter where they were fishing for Goliath Grouper.
You can fish for them but cannot bring on board to even take the hook out. This was done to preserve the species and apparently has worked well. But today there can be no world record caught. Truly spectacular fish, and the guys fishing for them didn't seem at all concerned about not being able to weigh them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Time to catch up. 7.62xJay asked if I would query IGFA about how many record submissions they get for muskie and pike.
LR: Jay I’ll put this question on hold until I have received responses for my last submission; relevant to this post.
7.62xJay also wrote: “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”
LR: Jay and all, there is NO EXCUSE for not reading ALL of the Rules of Submission for Record (especially All-tackle) and complying completely or not at all. All record organizations have different rules, and all must be adhered to. NOTE: Any serious muskie angler fishing record potential waters and with any interest in claiming a record should it ever happen, should have copied and STUDIED each organizations RULES & Application form and have the necessary equipment and material needed to complete a claim. Those making accidental catches are simply out of luck if they cannot comply with all rules.
Chuckski had some interesting comments that highlight partially what can and should happen.
Oracle responded to 7.62xJay: “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.”
LR: Pretty straight forward on several fronts!
7.62xJay responded: “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.”
LR: I cannot speak to IGFA procedures but would assume any application or rule(s) not completely complied with would be denied pending compliance if possible.
7.62 continues: “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.”
LR: I would suspect that the difficulty and “pre-preparation” necessary to comply with an IGFA record, that the number of applications they actually receive is minimal for pike and muskies. Salt water is another matter.
7.62xJay cont.: “…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?”
LR: My reading of the IGFA rules is that financial reward would apply to immediate post catch, i.e. prize/cash tournaments and the like.
Oracle responded: “^^ 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.”
LR: While all true, people lie all the time on affidavits; in court and to the Law. In a case such as this one that we are discussing, it would be impossible to PROVE that those involved lied about the weight, save confession…obviously unlikely to happen in this instance. That is why the MDMWRP (modernmuskierecords.org) rules of verification are so stringent and require a corpus delecti. I see no way that someone could cheat our program!!
Oracle continued: …”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.”
LR: Once again, I submit that if one desires to have a UNQUESTIONABLE All-tackle World Record muskie, that the fish must be kept and satisfy MDMWRP protocol. Most will laud IGFA’s recommendation that even All-tackle records should be released “if possible”, but will the muskie world, based on falsifications and cheating of history, EVER be satisfied with such a record? In my mind NO! Don’t want to kill a potential record, fine let it go and be satisfied, but don’t be surprised if not everyone believes in it.
7.62xJay: “Perhaps Mr. Ramsell could comment on whether there really any value today in trying to determine a "world record musky". When you have bodies of water like Lac Seul, where you cannot legally keep a musky and the record standards demanding a dead fish, how can you truly say a fish is the biggest?...
LR: I have to say Yes! All past bogus claims aside, records help scientists with the knowledge of the maximum potential growth of a species. In addition, as can be seen here on this Forum with already well over 12,000 “views” on this thread, there is apparently great interest within the muskie community regarding just what is the World Record Muskie (Muskellunge/Masquinongy)!!!
In the muskie world, Lac Suel is the only potential world record muskie producer where a muskie cannot be kept (and no known muskie OVER 60 POUNDS was ever registered from there before closure), compared to Goliath Grouper which cannot be kept anywhere. However, this fact does not, nor can it mean that Lac Suel DOES have a potential All-tackle World Record Muskie in it, and certainly the unproven fish which is the subject of this thread does not make it so.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 72
| The muskie fishing community certainly is an interesting bunch. We preach CPR and minimal handling of fish, especially the true giants and trophies, but at the same time when a world record class fish is submitted anglers are criticized for a lack of pictures or bad angles...which would require more handling. Seems like you're #*^@ed if you do #*^@ed if you don't. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| Not poo-pooing the IFGA here just to make that clear. That said, the amount of research and preparation you'd have to do ahead of time to be able to properly submit a record fish is a bit much. If you wait until you have one in the net to think about record potential you may as well just dump it out of the net and go on with your day.
I can honestly say that's probably what I would do. I wouldn't want to kill it. Went through that back in the day with a LMB I chased for the better part of a summer. Finally caught it. Everybody oohed and ahhed, and said they thought I was full of #*#* talking about this fish week after week. Everybody said I had to get it mounted, so I did. The following weekend it hit me that the fish I was chasing wasn't out there any more and I'd probably never see another one like it. Still have the mount, which is cool I guess. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | My IGFA contact has been out of the country and I just got a response from him. He stated that "Unfortunately, there was no photographs submitted along with the application showing the weight of the fish."
So now its up to the folks involved should they like to try and support their weight claim.
7.62xJay: I asked your question re number of apps. if "easily" available. If I get a reply I'll post it.
EA: Yes, it does take a lot of research and preparation ahead of time for someone interested in properly registering a potential All-tackle world record...necessarily so I might add! Your solution to not doing so is right on target. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 7.62xJay and all: Information has been received regarding the number of muskie and pike record submissions received by the IGFA and information that the IGFA also has club recognition for qualifying muskies that aren't records:
IGFA: ..."It certainly differs from year to year. Recently Tiger muskie have been a popular record species I often receive between 5-10 applications a year. Between muskie and pike there have been years where I have up to 10 applications, but also years like 2023 where I've only received 4. Something I've always tried to promote is the IGFA Pike and Muskie Trophy Clubs,- International Game Fish Association (igfa.org). (this was a link i doubt will work here direct to "club" info...LR) I'm sure several anglers catch fish every year that would qualify for the trophy club and I think it is a great way to promote the fishery."
LR: So, here is a way for those not prepared when catching a potential record class fish or just a way to recognition if your muskie is over 30-pounds or 50-inches. (personally I believe recognizing weight is contrary to the necessary C&R highly practiced today by muskie anglers and will make it known to IGFA). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Kurita's world record "tie" largemouth has a lot of similarities - except in that case largemouth an invasive to be eradicated and thus kept. But the weighing, affidavit, special fishing reg (no anchoring on spot) and then taking a polygraph to verify claims, folks questioning veracity, etc. - IGFA has a precedent on how to handle a record of major interest:
https://www.startribune.com/new-co-world-record-22-4-largemouth-bass...
There is a point when a pending IGFA record should be up on their site, but I think that point would be after an initial vetting of whether the application is complete as far the basic requirements - not immediately.
Based on what you are telling us, Larry, right from the IGFA sources, it didn't even meet the IGFA rules, never mind abiding by the regulations of the waterbody claimed from.
The problem with the current state of the internet is that this AI (artificial insanity) is that it gathers up facts and nonsense with equal abandon and gives whatever weight it wants to it. I hope this 72 2 thing goes way (if continues to be unverified) - but probably too late.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/17/2024 11:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 480
Location: NW WI | Hey thanks for asking Larry, I appreciate it. I really had no anticipated figure in mind but i believe that those low number of submissions is enough to prove my previous theory of let's say "voluntary ignorance submissions" as false.
I am not an IGFA member so maybe this data is just not visible to myself or I'm navigating the sight wrong but is there a viewable previous record log that can be viewed by the public? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | 7.62xJay: I'm not aware of what you ask about on the IGFA site, but I recall Angling Oracle referring to something of that nature earlier in this thread. Perhaps he can enlighten us.
By the way, Oracles link to the Largemouth Bass record story would certainly indicate the this supposed 72-2 was a looong way from ever being accepted, had it even been submitted with all required information and photographs!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/18/2024 8:34 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/18/2024 8:23 AM
7.62xJay: I'm not aware of what you ask about on the IGFA site, but I recall Angling Oracle referring to something of that nature earlier in this thread. Perhaps he can enlighten us.
By the way, Oracles link to the Largemouth Bass record story would certainly indicate the this supposed 72-2 was a looong way from ever being accepted, had it even been submitted with all required information and photographs!
Page I was referring to is this one for straight up muskellunge that is just the current stuff for all categories.
https://igfa.org/member-services/world-record/common-name/Muskellung...
It does confirm that the majority of records are usually by folks specifically trying to get them. If you pick an angler and click on their name, you can see all the different records they currently hold for other species as well.
Re. Largemouth - the article did miss one little bit, 10.12 kgs is actually 22 pounds 5 ounces (4.97 ounces), but because it didn't beat the old record by the percentages required by IGFA, it is deemed a tie - hence why I had "tie" in quotes.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/18/2024 3:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1
| I have a story to tell but just not ready to share it.
Though I can assure you 60 plus inch 70lb muskies due exist. Needle in a haystack and 25 years of hard casting, miles trolling and 10's of thousands of $$$$ it finally happened. Stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
| No shock or surprise on the 60 inch thing but the 72 lb thing does surprise.Anxiously await your info. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 166
| GeorgianBay27! - 3/17/2024 5:56 PM
I have a story to tell but just not ready to share it.
Though I can assure you 60 plus inch 70lb muskies due exist. Needle in a haystack and 25 years of hard casting, miles trolling and 10's of thousands of $$$$ it finally happened. Stay tuned.
We'll never hear from this guy again lol. |
|
| |
|
| BillM - 3/18/2024 11:41 AM GeorgianBay27! - 3/17/2024 5:56 PM I have a story to tell but just not ready to share it. Though I can assure you 60 plus inch 70lb muskies due exist. Needle in a haystack and 25 years of hard casting, miles trolling and 10's of thousands of $$$$ it finally happened. Stay tuned. We'll never hear from this guy again lol. Looks like GeorgianBay27! is now trolling the internet and he's getting a few bites.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| I still say 70# is possible.
It would have to be a late fall fish, carrying substantial egg mass, and a belly full of whitefish. If such a fish exists it's probably going to be laying around digesting a meal and wouldn't chase a lure if you did get one in front of it. That's the other thing. A fish like that isn't going to be hanging around in any of the places we usually fish, and I don't think it would be likely to bother with the relatively small offerings we fish with.
I've said this before: If there is one caught and someone gets a halfway decent picture of it there won't be much doubt as to the size, because it will dwarf any musky any of us have ever seen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | dickP - 3/18/2024 8:01 AM
No shock or surprise on the 60 inch thing but the 72 lb thing does surprise.Anxiously await your info.
Wane Farrell is the name on the login. 1 login and 1 post since signing up on the 16th. Not looking promising. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| 60"x33.34" would get you to 72#. That's a fish you could bear hug and rest your chin on it's back. Just about the same girth as a 5 gallon bucket. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 166
| I hate to be that guy, so take this as you will.
I've got a buddy who's been in the muskie game a long time, guided a lot celebs (and fishing hosts) in his day. Friends with guys people would consider muskie 'gods'. He's told me about fish that have been caught over 60in and released in Gbay. No pics, no articles, no nothing. Do I believe him? I actually do. This guy has caught more muskies over 50in then I care to even imagine (and I've seen pics of some really high 50in giants). Big water pelagic fish eating those oily whitefish/herring/trout. I doubt I'll ever put a lure in front of one of these fish, but it's nice to know they gotta be out there somewhere |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | BillM - 3/21/2024 9:49 AM
He's told me about fish that have been caught over 60in and released in Gbay. )
One too many beers for him that night.
And I don't mean that he is not telling the truth, that he had loose lips about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| I can see keeping fish quiet if we're talking about a 500 acre lake, but anybody who knows this crazy sport already knows about Georgian Bay, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake, Green Bay, St Clair, and all the other trophy fisheries. We all want to catch the biggest musky ever, but that doesn't mean any of us are going to flock to the great lakes fisheries when so and so catches a giant. The guys who would probably have a snowballs chance in hell of any measurable success there anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | esoxaddict - 3/21/2024 12:55 PM
I can see keeping fish quiet if we're talking about a 500 acre lake, but anybody who knows this crazy sport already knows about Georgian Bay, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake, Green Bay, St Clair, and all the other trophy fisheries. We all want to catch the biggest musky ever, but that doesn't mean any of us are going to flock to the great lakes fisheries when so and so catches a giant. The guys who would probably have a snowballs chance in hell of any measurable success there anyway.
"There is no reason to have to report where you catch your muskies. When you work hard, there's no reason to give all your secrets away." - Dick Pearson- circa 1984 (In-Fisherman)
It is not the folks flocking from elsewhere you have to worry about, it is the other folks that fish the same place you do. No different that hunting big bucks, best turkey, pheasant and grouse spots, duck marsh, etc. Keep your mouth shut and your net outta sight.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/21/2024 1:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| One thought on the Dick Pearson quote: At the time he wrote that (1984), we didn't have SI/DI and electronics did not allow you to save hot spots, structure with a finger touch on a screen or press a button and later allow you to follow electronic path back. In the 1970s, a friend's brother-in-law took us to a boulder pile in the Three Lakes chain. Back then, you had to be lucky to find that in the middle of the lake and very few musky guys knew about its potential for big skis. Today, it is on maps and easy to pinpoint with electronics.
Dick's point may still be valid, but it is a very different era in finding fishing spots. |
|
| |
