Posted 11/28/2015 3:55 PM (#794436) Subject: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 69
Well, I guess it's time to let out the news of a fish that may have made history... On November 25th we were out on the pond trolling in my boat when the clicker went off on my partners rod (Dominic Hoyos) with a large custom bait (I had it painted by Tyler Wolf in Wisconsin) at 12:35pm and what we were able to put in the bag was absolutely unbelievable. She measured a touch over 55" with a pinched tail and had a legitimate 30" girth. Weight calculators put her at almost 62lbs on one formula and high fifties on the other... Either way a World Record contender for sure. She was successfully released and I will also try to get the release clip up soon... Dean Block
Here is the link of the release I just published on Youtube.
Posted 11/28/2015 4:16 PM (#794440 - in reply to #794438) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 965
Nice job Congrats to both of you..
That is a hell of a fish.. I know Dom Fishes his ass off and is a hell of a fisherman.. Well deserved...
Tell Dom Angie wants her hat back.
Jeff Hanson
madisonmuskyguide.com
Posted 11/28/2015 5:24 PM (#794451 - in reply to #794445) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 69
cave run legend - 11/28/2015 4:42 PM
Congrats. Did you consider taking it to a certified scale? I know I would have.
No, it all happened so fast and it never really sunk in until we were back on shore at Jason Hamernick's place and the hand shakes and hugs started... But, if we had to do it all over again Dominic and I would still release that fish.
Posted 11/28/2015 6:46 PM (#794464 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN
When Dean messaged me about this fish the other day, I was totally skeptical, thinking it was either a joke or an inflated girth measurement which is rampant this time of year. Then I pleaded for a pic. I was totally floored by it. I wish I had never seen it. I couldn't sleep for 2 days so I can only imagine how they were feeling. Amazing catch, that restores faith that 60 pounders aren't unicorns and are attainable. Thanks for sharing with me so early on and trusting me not to share it prematurely. AWESOME CATCH!!!! Truly jealous!
Posted 11/28/2015 7:11 PM (#794466 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1760
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn
Incredibly beautiful fish and a phenomenal RELEASE!!!!!!!!!!This fall's slow and steadily dropping temps created the perfect recipe. Congrats!!! .....You'll eventually get a good night sleep.
Posted 11/28/2015 7:58 PM (#794471 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 558
Wow Wow Wow. Congrats on a true toad of a life-time! I bet it felt 80 and sunny out there once she fell in the bag. Congrats again and even a bigger congrats on the priceless release, must have felt sweet.
Posted 11/29/2015 3:54 PM (#794578 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Todd M said: "Awesome fish and I love the bump board and girth measurement pics! All that is missing is a notorized certificate of authenticity! Congrats!"
Todd, a "certificate of authenticity" isn't needed. The great photos say it all! It was indeed a great fish, but unfortunately we will never know what it did weigh, quite simply because it wasn't weighed and/or kept.
It is a monster and most likely would have been, at the very least, a new state record, like a few other Mille Lacs fish (and others from elsewhere) before it had it been kept.
Dean contacted Steve Worrall of the MDMWR Program, who passed it off to me earlier and Dean was unfortunately under a misconception of what it took to become a new world record, thinking that the photo's, measurements and video, along with a notarized statement, would get the job done. This is in spite of the fact that the Modern Day World Record Program has had a home on this site for several years now and our "Rules" have always been available to everyone (www.modernmuskierecord.org).
I don't wish to be a wet blanket or cast aspersions on this tremendous accomplishment, obviously it was for real, but as I have stated many, many times on this board, "If you don't weigh it, you shouldn't say it." I mean no disrespect to these two gentlemen, but the standard formula (L X G X G/800) quite simply usually overstates the weight of these BIG girls. The Crawford formula (L X G/25 minus 10) is much closer to actual weighed fish, but not perfect either, and shows this fish at 56 pounds. Last year there was a 53 X 29 caught from Mille Lacs that was weighed. The standard formula put it at 55.71 pounds and the Crawford formula put it at 51.48 pounds. It actually weighed 53 pounds on a scale, just a pound and a half more than the Crawford formula and almost 3 pounds less than the standard formula.
My recommendation: If you wish to establish a new Modern Day World Record, you must keep the fish and follow the rules..to the letter. If you wish to catch and release a giant such as this fish, you may still carry a certified scale in the boat, weigh it and then let it go and while it can't qualify as a new record for weight, it can be claimed with certainty, an accurate weight and not an "estimatate".
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day World Record Program
Posted 11/29/2015 7:25 PM (#794591 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 2075
Heck of a fish - congrats!
Ben Olsen
Posted 11/29/2015 7:35 PM (#794593 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
MDMWR and Larry, If the fish was weighed on a certified scale and enough evidence was provided why shouldn't the fish be a record?!? People have been convicted and sentenced to death based on far less evidence! We need a record keeping organization that reflects current CPR ethics! It continues to suck that fish need to be killed to get an official record!! Sorry to hijack...another place and time.
Posted 11/29/2015 8:33 PM (#794597 - in reply to #794593) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 69
Ben Olsen - 11/29/2015 7:35 PM
MDMWR and Larry, If the fish was weighed on a certified scale and enough evidence was provided why shouldn't the fish be a record?!? People have been convicted and sentenced to death based on far less evidence! We need a record keeping organization that reflects current CPR ethics! It continues to suck that fish need to be killed to get an official record!! Sorry to hijack...another place and time.
Posted 11/29/2015 9:11 PM (#794600 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Guys:
I too applaud Dean and Dominic for releasing a fish of that caliber and I understand everyone's lament that a released fish cannot qualify for WR status by weight, but even "if" weighed on a certified scale before release it could never stand scrutiny if released. The Committee of the MDMWRP discussed these matters at length and there is just no way to ever truly certify the weight of a released fish. History is rife with bogus claims of fish that were even kept and that is what we are trying to prevent by developing rules that make it impossible for that to happen again. That is impossible when a fish is released.
I hope you all understand and also understand what a tremendous fish Dominic and Dean caught and released, regardless what it may or may have not weighed.
Posted 11/29/2015 9:25 PM (#794601 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 242
What an UNBELIEVABLE fish! Easily a fish of 10,000 Lifetimes.
As far as the MDMWR or the IGFA, who really cares if it was a record or not? Watching that release video and seeing the fish swim off strong and healthy is much much better than seeing it dead on a grocery store scale to satisfy the rules of those organizations. I'll be watching that video long after I would look to see the weight of some fish on a list.
Posted 11/29/2015 10:20 PM (#794603 - in reply to #794600) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 295
Larry Ramsell - 11/29/2015 10:11 PM
History is rife with bogus claims of fish that were even kept and that is what we are trying to prevent by developing rules that make it impossible for that to happen again. That is impossible when a fish is released.
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
MDMWRP
These two back-to-back statements immediately contradict themselves.
Posted 11/30/2015 2:07 AM (#794614 - in reply to #794600) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 28
I agree with Larry Ramsell and feel he couldnt of said it better. Personally, I have never kept a muskie in my life but I would of kept that fish, had I caught it. We all know how important catch and release is for a fishery; however, the mount of that fish as a certified record could be used in many ways that would benefit the fishery as a whole much more than releasing it would.
Posted 11/30/2015 6:18 AM (#794616 - in reply to #794614) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 444
Congrats on a Huge Queen. Pics say it all.
Letting the fish go is alot more important then some record by some "organization" which amounts to your name on a website or a piece of paper.
Posted 11/30/2015 8:48 AM (#794625 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 100
Loved Larry's response. Bottom line is that unless you are willing to kill the fish don't claim it as a world record. The facts are that people who are fishing for a new world record only release fish that they know are not world records. The claim that it is a word record is made to draw attention.
Posted 11/30/2015 9:41 AM (#794630 - in reply to #794436) Subject: RE: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 719
With respect to those who attempt to legitimize and clarify the record keeping issues and the anglers involved in this and the other spectacular catch's this fall:
There is no "World Record" and really how can there ever be one. Competing against the mostly falsified claims of the past is chasing a ghost...but those claims are still out there and perception being what it is there will always be some who use that as the standard.
We don't really know what the biggest Muskie ever caught was or who caught it and we never will because Muskies get released and before the age of Go-Pro, self timers and the internet numbers of huge fish were caught and never documented.
Again and to be clear...are we trying to figure out what the biggest muskie ever caught was (impossible) or the biggest one that someone bothered to kill and document.
And that folks is the conundrum...we will NEVER know for sure what "The Record" is.
What I do know is that it is a spectacular fish that rises a bit above the other spectacular fish caught this fall...again congrats. Every muskie angler aspires to touch one of that caliber...at least to me that is all that really matters.
Posted 11/30/2015 10:12 AM (#794633 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 230
Location: St Paul, Minnesota
She gone!
Well done boys,
Top notch work with a great fish! Get that replica made and maybe work in some kind of screen that plays the release video on push-button command. That to me is worth more than any "official" record for other people to dispute with the ghosts of the past.
I hope to see you around at one of the expos so that I might shake the hand that held and released the Queen!
Posted 11/30/2015 11:42 AM (#794637 - in reply to #794630) Subject: RE: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1901
Location: MN
bturg - 11/30/2015 9:41 AM
Again and to be clear...are we trying to figure out what the biggest muskie ever caught was (impossible) or the biggest one that someone bothered to kill and document.
And that folks is the conundrum...we will NEVER know for sure what "The Record" is.
Bob, it seems you are saying that because of the shenanigans that many of our muskie forefathers pulled, any attempt to establish a "modern day record" falls short as a true accounting of a world record for this species. Do you feel that the new record keeping is merely identifying "the biggest one someone bothered to kill and document"?
Posted 11/30/2015 11:55 AM (#794639 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 8845
No point in arguing records. At this point, let's take it for what it is. We have a length measurement. We have a girth measurement. While the various formulas are only an approximation, those combined with the pictures and video will tell you one thing for sure. That's a HUGE musky. I'm glad to see it was released, but it would have been nice to get a true weight, age, and find out what the heck it ate.
Posted 11/30/2015 12:10 PM (#794642 - in reply to #794632) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Location: 31
Very well stated bturg! I would like to add that although we may not know what the true record is, we know what it not.
I would like to take a moment to add some clarification to some of the other posts regarding the record potential of this fish too. Nobody involved in the capture said it would have been a record in this thread, just that it could have been a record contender if it would have been kept.
With that said; there is simply no way to properly authenticate the weight of a released fish for a record, even if it was weighed on a certified scale. Please do not take this as a blanket endorsement by the MDMWRP to keep a record contending fish, because the MDMWRP certainly advocates proper catch and release (guys like Larry Ramsell were actually a big part of the release movement back in the 70’s). The main reason for the establishment of the MDMWRP by Larry was to help establish a legitimate weight record for the muskie fishing fraternity, one that we can rally behind. As a voting member of the modern-day records committee, I'm supremely confident we did just that with Seeberger’s muskie, and that we were able to authenticate an already dead muskie.
I can understand why many of you could careless about the records, and are 100% release. However, I personally feel that without the early Spray/Johnson/O'Brien research conducted by the WMA, and subsequent formation of the MDMWRP, there would a false sense of how big these fish can get, and true giants like this would not receive their proper place in history. IMHO, these gents did a remarkable job of truly authenticating this catch for us, and deserve even more credit than if they had kept it.
Posted 11/30/2015 12:49 PM (#794649 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Location: MN
Thanks so much for sharing the pictures, video and story. It's seeing fish like these that give the rest of us the drive to keep pushing on in this crazy sport.
Funny thing about catching a big fish like this is there is criticism of the fish if released and there would be even more criticism of the fisherman if it were kept. Hopefully comments on here don't keep people from sharing these special fish in the future.
I agree, who cares about breaking an artificial record. Congrats guys!
Posted 11/30/2015 1:28 PM (#794656 - in reply to #794650) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 3160
A world record out of Mille Lacs would be worth keeping,,,this would be a great testament and compliment to the Minnesota dnr muskie program to produce something like this in a program that's not really that old could preserve and expand their budget, Might help in getting more waters stocked too.
Posted 11/30/2015 2:40 PM (#794673 - in reply to #794436) Subject: RE: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 69
Once again, thank you all that have chimed in with the kind words. Dominic and I by no way shape or form tried to make this fish anything that it was not... The pics speak for themselves. By myself stating that I believed it was a contender for the WR meant just that. Not that is was the new world record (because it was not weighed), but that based on tried and true formulas this fish is in that 58lb neighborhood where the current WR stands putting it up there with the top fish. Best part of it is she is still swimming and next year she will be bigger! The release video will never get old! Dominic and I are still in shock over what we accomplished, and I think it is going to take a very long time to get off this high...And I am okay with that!
Posted 11/30/2015 3:03 PM (#794675 - in reply to #794673) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Location: varies
Hey Dean, what did she eat? using planer boards?..
Are there any deets your willing to share on your circus side show freak of nature slob of a honey catch?
Posted 11/30/2015 4:58 PM (#794687 - in reply to #794637) Subject: RE: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 719
Propster - 11/30/2015 11:42 AM
bturg - 11/30/2015 9:41 AM
Again and to be clear...are we trying to figure out what the biggest muskie ever caught was (impossible) or the biggest one that someone bothered to kill and document.
And that folks is the conundrum...we will NEVER know for sure what "The Record" is.
Bob, it seems you are saying that because of the shenanigans that many of our muskie forefathers pulled, any attempt to establish a "modern day record" falls short as a true accounting of a world record for this species. Do you feel that the new record keeping is merely identifying "the biggest one someone bothered to kill and document"?
To an extent yes. Example: I have a buddy up in AK whose son has about ten "World Records" in a bunch of different categories...line test, age group, etc etc. None of these are "the biggest one ever caught" but they are "WR". Like the exceptional fish caught on a fly rod earlier this fall..."a fly rod record". If the fly guys have their own record do we also need a trolling, casting and live bait record ? In the end any record fish is unlikely to be "the biggest ever caught" it is simply the one that someone bothered to document to a standard recognized by a specific record keeping agency. Simply put there is no way of truly knowing what the biggest muskie ever caught is...the guy who caught it may have let it go without another soul knowing about it...or not.
So that said some will want to keep records (and some will want to chase them) and the documentation of significant catch's is always interesting (I have read and enjoyed all of Larry R's books) but "the record" is always going to be a paper champion of sorts, at least in my opinion.
Again what a hog along with a host of other hogs that have graced these pages and the screen of my phone the last month or so...congrats to all involved !
Posted 11/30/2015 6:18 PM (#794699 - in reply to #794675) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 69
rodbender - 11/30/2015 3:03 PM
Hey Dean, what did she eat? using planer boards?..
Are there any deets your willing to share on your circus side show freak of nature slob of a honey catch?
Yes she was caught using a planer board, & I will say that there is only one lure in the world currently like it though, and it's currently in my basement:) Other than what is in my original post that's all I am willing to share with the world at this time...
Posted 11/30/2015 7:39 PM (#794704 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 162
Location: Chicago, IL
Congrats, Dean and Dominic. I think you guys finally convinced my fishing partner who despises trolling that it is where it's at for the best chances at the biggest fish in a given system. Especially in the fall. Congrats again.
Posted 11/30/2015 7:47 PM (#794705 - in reply to #794633) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 46
The best way to get past all the "world record" BS is to over and over again release and document fish in the world record category. Then the world record will become as irrelevant as the MN state record.
What self-respecting muskie fisherman would keep a fish to get the MN record when they know the "record" has already been beat so many times? Rise above it. And forget about every so-called record keeping organization ... unless, of course, that organization aligns with our C&R values and ONLY keeps records of released fish. What a modern idea!
Posted 11/30/2015 10:53 PM (#794718 - in reply to #794699) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 8845
dblockjr - 11/30/2015 6:18 PM
rodbender - 11/30/2015 3:03 PM
Hey Dean, what did she eat? using planer boards?..
Are there any deets your willing to share on your circus side show freak of nature slob of a honey catch?
Yes she was caught using a planer board, & I will say that there is only one lure in the world currently like it though, and it's currently in my basement:) Other than what is in my original post that's all I am willing to share with the world at this time...
I'd have a hard time fishing with that lure again. Then again, I'd have a hard time NOT fishing with it again, too.
Posted 12/1/2015 7:03 AM (#794722 - in reply to #794705) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
John23 - 11/30/2015 7:47 PM
The best way to get past all the "world record" BS is to over and over again release and document fish in the world record category. Then the world record will become as irrelevant as the MN state record.
What self-respecting muskie fisherman would keep a fish to get the MN record when they know the "record" has already been beat so many times? Rise above it. And forget about every so-called record keeping organization ... unless, of course, that organization aligns with our C&R values and ONLY keeps records of released fish. What a modern idea!
Posted 12/1/2015 9:15 AM (#794733 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 157
Location: Lincoln, NE
"The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope." - John Buchan
The coolest thing about this whole thing is that it's still OUT THERE. Will it have the same girth next year? Will it get to 56x30? 58x30? 60x30? Will it ever get caught again? That is what keeps us all up at night. Because of them, your very next cast or trolling pass could be THE ONE.
He said "world record contender" not "shattered the world record". Also how bad would it suck to kill a fish you thought was the world record, only to have it fall a half pound short and all be for nothing? I think they did the right thing.
I congratulate both of them on the catch and on the release. Because of them we all have another shot at this fish. That is a selfless act that benefits everyone who is in this sport. I don't think it needs to be "recorded" in an organization's record book. It has been recorded right here with pictures, story, and video. I'd rather see these pictures and watch the video than see some faceless guy's name from 1960 on a list somewhere.
Posted 12/4/2015 9:39 AM (#795178 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1422
Don't know if I'm posting this link correctly, may have to copy and paste into your browser. Pretty decent discussion with the anglers on an outdoor show on the radio.
Posted 12/5/2015 8:20 AM (#795285 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
A couple of problems with that article; That Mr. Block believes that the Modern Day World Record is the true world record, is in my belief is correct and his decision. The IGFA WR has been shown/proven to be less than claimed as has the NFWFHF "record".
Secondly, the current IGFA release record is 56 inches, not 52 inches. IGFA goes by length only, however that fish caught by Dr. Mark Carlson was weighed on an IGFA certified scale at 55 pounds. Girth was not taken. A photo of the fish on an official IGFA bump board (necessary to qualify for their record) has appeared on this message board in the past.
At any rate, this may not be over yet, so stay tuned next week!!
Posted 12/6/2015 8:13 AM (#795364 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Location: Waukesha, WI, USA
Wondered how long it would take you to show up Larry. Hope all is well. You probably do t remember me. We fished together a few times on the Chip. Miss the great stories.
Posted 1/3/2016 8:28 PM (#797929 - in reply to #794436) Subject: Re: Mille Lacs Queen
Posts: 696
Location: Northern Illinois
So I'm just thinking of a what if scenario. Let's say you Larry and a couple others from the MDMWR program are fishing together. Someone in the group catches an absolute monster. You also happen to be at a spot that has a certified scale just on land which is 50 feet away. The fish gets weighed and you and the others witness it to be the current World Record. The person then decides because of how well the fish is doing he/she is going to release it. The fish would not count as the record because of not being kept? Trying to understand all of this.
Mille Lacs Queen
