|
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read about it! The muskie community has spoken. It's time to confirm and recognize the giants released each year, and offer a record keeping organization for the anglers and fans of the sport interested in a release program. I have been wishing for a consistent, workable, and safe-for-the-fish method to recognize some of the beasts caught every year. Larry performed the work to make this possible, and MuskieFIRST welcomes this program aboard.
Larry will address this in much more detail this evening.
(getimage_article_show.aspx.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 getimage_article_show.aspx.jpg (88KB - 28 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| This is a great thing for those of us who have no desire to obtain 3.5 minutes of fame at the expense of a 35 year old fish just to prove it was as big as we say it was. Larry's work on this has been huge. Looking forward to this!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| Dominic and I are totally floored reading this and also extremely humbled by all that has transpired since 11/25. Obviously we take great pride in these fish and want the future to be as good for our kids as it has been for us. This program will definitely help that! The catch and kill mentality is a thing of the past and we are so happy to see the new program recognizing current practices and ethics within the muskie community! We will hold "The Queen" on top with the respect she deserves as long as she remains there! Thank you Larry and Steve for listening to everyone that has chimed in over the years and implementing a great program. It shall be a great success!
Dean Block |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | progress! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To all MuskieFirsters (and the world):
You asked for it and now you've got it! Steve noted that I would chime in with much more detail, although there isn't really a lot more to detail. Quite simply, to qualify one only need to capture, DOCUMENT FULLY as did Dean and Dominic, a giant that calculates to over 58 pounds using the "Modified Crawford Formula" (L X G/25 -8). This formula is easy to use quickly, and is as near accurate as humanly possible for fish of this caliber without understating fish weight. Nothing is perfect in this regard and it is still an "estimate", but it is an estimate that will be the same for all, based on fish measurement.
Proper, commercial bump (measuring) boards must be used for length measurement and a soft tape for girth measurement that is readable in a photograph. Obviously photographs equal to or greater than those obtained by Dean and Dominic are required, i.e., distant and close ups of both measurement and the close ups must be readable as well as a good shot of the fish being held...Dean and Dominic set the bar very high in this regard and left no doubt of the mammoth size of their fish.
And here is what I think you will find to be an interesting kicker; Should there be any questions or concerns of future contenders, YOU, the registered members of the MuskieFirst forum, will in effect, be the program Committee and will vote thumbs up or thumbs down on a questionable entry!
When a friend first called and asked me if we wanted to get involved in establishing a release world record, I said "Absolutely not! Are you out of your "frigging" (or something like that) mind?" But after stewing on it for a couple of days, I could see that there just might be a way to make it work on released muskies; something the majority have been clamoring for, for years. And here we are...we hope you all approve and that this program will continue to save untold numbers of giant muskies, while at the same time giving them their just recognition...
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/11/2015 7:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Yay! And to think just a week or so ago Ben Olsen and a few of us here were clamoring for just such a program. Larry you shot it down then - glad you changed your mind and helped put it together. Thank you |
|
| |
|
Posts: 264
| Fabulous!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1264
Location: Walker, MN | Way to go guys! Thank you! |
|
| |
|
| Thank You!!! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | You don't have to weigh it JUST SAY IT |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | horsehunter - 12/12/2015 7:29 AM
You don't have to weigh it JUST SAY IT
 |
|
| |
|
Location: varies | can we settle or quantify the difference that makes a "giant" , a "monster" and a "dink" ? also a "slob giant" and a "slob monster"?
whats actually bigger, a giant or a monster? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Leaving the finale decision to the members of an online fishing form is bizarre at best .
Edited by horsehunter 12/12/2015 9:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | horsehunter - 12/12/2015 9:16 AM
Leaving the finale decision to the members of an online fishing form is bizarre at best .
I have to believe that while everybody can have input on a given entry, Larry would have the final say. If this isn't the case, then any "record" decided here might as well be a debate about which reel is best for double 10s.
First things first - thanks Larry (and Steve) for stepping up to fill an obvious void in the record keeping of our sport. Can we expect a published set of rules, similar to the MDMWRP ? I believe an iron clad set of rules along with a best practice guidelines for measuring and photographic supporting evidence will go a long way to eliminating the usual discourse we see whenever a controversial topic is raised.
Thanks again Larry. This is sure to be a thankless job but I can't think of anybody more qualified to tackle it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Horsehunter (Frank): NO, you can't "just say it". As noted in my first post, it MUST be documented at least as well as was done on the "Mille Lacs Queen". PERIOD (Dfkiii, that should answer your question too...my post has the "rules" for documentation and acceptance.).
Let's be realistic Frank, it was the members of this forum that wanted this and it shall be them to decide any controversy. We are juggling the desire for CPR and knowing the size of fish released. As I have noted before, I developed a "Point System" for this kind of a program that would work, BUT, no matter what that result was, everyone would still want to know "what did it weigh?". While this new formula is very close on this caliber of fish, it will always remain merely an "estimate" of live weight. It will never replace weighing one on a certified scale, but it will satisfy today's conservation minded muskie anglers and protect a lot of giant fish.
Rodbender: Your call. For our purposes here, it will take "a very big muskie" to displace our current new record! We are dealing with world class fish in the 58 pound and over category. In my book these fish are, "giants" or Monsters" and they may "slobber" too! Dinks on the other hand...well, if you have to ask... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | horsehunter - 12/12/2015 7:29 AM
You don't have to weigh it JUST SAY IT
This is a release category. If you neither support the concept of a release category, that's fine. It's happening anyway.
Larry will confirm each entry and will have the final word, but input from the Muskie community will be taken seriously. You will have the bump board images, girth images, and a number of CRR images. If it's 'done right' there won't be much controversy. If it isn't, it won't qualify.
As was already said, if the fish qualifies and is successfully released, the weight may be forever unknown, but we'll be close. And the fish will still be swimming. I fail to see the problem. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Thanks Larry. To recap:
1) Fish must be measured on a commercial bump board. Implies any home made boards will be disqualify the entry immediately.
2) Soft tape for girth measurement. Again, assumes that the tape must be commercially produced.
3) Photos must be at least as good as the ones Dean and Dom took. Subjectivity will prevail over rule #3.
4) Record validity will be voted upon by the registered members of the forum. While unlikely that a split decision would occur somebody could always create a new log in and break the tie.
This seems to be more of "fun" venture than an "official" one. Fair enough. At least we might see some of the giants that get released without a word and as a side benefit, Todd will be pleased to see photos with bump boards in them. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Successful release is unverifiable unless release to the turtles qualifies |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| horsehunter - 12/12/2015 12:54 PM
Successful release is unverifiable unless release to the turtles qualifies
The same could be said for every fish we catch.
I believe this is the best method anyone has come up with. As long as we apply the same criteria to all of them, and the same formula there's not much to argue about.
Pretty sure some will try, though. |
|
| |
|
| Congrats to Dean & Dominic on a new world record!
Im guessing she will dump a few pounds of eggs come spring.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | It is my and only my belief that anything that that has a reasonable chance of besting the current record should be harvested weighted in front of indisputable witnesses and turned over to scientist. In Canada where I live if the fish were mine it would go to John Cassleman and Bruce Tufts at Queens University.
It is also my belief based on the number of large fish that I know died and the number of floaters seen by myself and friends on the St Lawrence that a lot more large fish are not surviving that we would like to believe.Over the years i have seen a lot of released fish grow in the bar and heard of some that even grew in front of witnesses to the catch.
I will still go with what Larry has said for many years if you don't weigh it don't say it.
But that's only my opinion and worth exactly what it cost you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dfkiii: You pretty much have it nailed. If one is close enough for a tie, well, it would have to suspect is some manner, correct? This is an "official" venture and should be "fun" as well! AND, Mr. Worrall has given me "the last word".
Horsehunter (Frank): Did you watch the video? Looked pretty lively to me. Get over it, it is "game on". Just do it right when you catch her or keep quiet. Yes, we can never be sure they make it, but as I said many times over 35 years ago when I started promoting catch and release, "I guarantee you if you knock them over the head they won't make it, but if you let them go, they at least have a chance"!
EA: Thank you. And I concur.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/12/2015 2:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | how bout a rule that you have to have your own photos and video of a contestable fish before you can argue or complain? and at that point you earn a red flag that you can use at will and throw it onto the field of play for official review. until then you have no red flag.
Edited by jonnysled 12/12/2015 2:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| Larry, is there a "cutoff point" at which you believe it would be better to modify the formula using a minus factor of 9 (or the original 10) to give a more accurate representation of likely weight? I realize this top is about record class fish so I don't mean to hijack it. Just curious for those of us who will likely never catch one over 50#.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| Good news! I like the new formula as well. My PB grew from 45.63 to 48.16 with it. Now the question is, what company will be the first to make their bump boards with measurements for 16ths of an inch? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| jonnysled - 12/12/2015 2:30 PM
how bout a rule that you have to have your own photos and video of a contestable fish before you can argue or complain? and at that point you earn a red flag that you can use at will and throw it onto the field of play for official review. until then you have no red flag.
You sure you want to open that door, Jon?  |
|
| |
|
| WOW...sad to witness the death of common sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | EA: The new formula, as noted in the news release, is based on a data base of fish of known weight from 53 to 61.25 pounds. I haven't yet taken the time to do work on the weights below that. I give credibility for this new formula only in the weights noted above. I'm sure that there is a point were a minus 9 would be more accurate for the lesser weights back to the point of the original minus 10 working best....sorry ARmuskyaddict. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Larry I have the greatest respect for you and the work you have done ,,,But " IF YOU DON'T WEIGH IT YOU CAN'T SAY IT " starting this new record org just devalues everything that you have said over the years , There is too much chance of a record being given or taken by a popularity vote , you of all people should recognize this from the fiasco of the OBRIAN fish , I too have seen the video and talked to people who were there that were and are upstanding honorable men and at the time it was all good , so what now when you are gone like Powers and the rest that were there at the time will you be discredited , that would be a shame , It all boils down to one thing , if you want to be a Hero for the day Bonk it , weigh it and donate it to science like Frank states , if not let it go and we can all act like gentleman and say " NICE FISH " , Remember you can go from a zero to a hero and a hero to a zero in one day , it only lasts until the next monster is caught or someone with less integrity wants their name in lights ! Good work on the new formula but it still does not prove a thing
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Great program and a worthy fish to start with. That being said it would have been cool to start from scratch then I could go out and catch a 35"er and at least for a day, have a catch and release record! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| Hard to fudge bump board and girth measurements in a picture. And I guarantee you that if some of the pictures are questionable, the folks here will be on it like flies on #*#*. This, to me, is the best alternative to whacking the fish in the head, only to find out that not only is it a few pounds shy of any sort of record, but that the meat is worthless and a skin mount really isn't what you wanted. Total waste. Way too many egos on this sport to encourage folks to whack a legal fish to prove mine is bigger than yours. |
|
| |
|
| Trophyhunter1958 - 12/12/2015 8:17 PM
Larry I have the greatest respect for you and the work you have done ,,,But " IF YOU DON'T WEIGH IT YOU CAN'T SAY IT " starting this new record org just devalues everything that you have said over the years , There is too much chance of a record being given or taken by a popularity vote , you of all people should recognize this from the fiasco of the OBRIAN fish , I too have seen the video and talked to people who were there that were and are upstanding honorable men and at the time it was all good , so what now when you are gone like Powers and the rest that were there at the time will you be discredited , that would be a shame , It all boils down to one thing , if you want to be a Hero for the day Bonk it , weigh it and donate it to science like Frank states , if not let it go and we can all act like gentleman and say " NICE FISH " , Remember you can go from a zero to a hero and a hero to a zero in one day , it only lasts until the next monster is caught or someone with less integrity wants their name in lights ! Good work on the new formula but it still does not prove a thing
Respectfully well said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| ^^^That depends on how you view it. I said my comment in jest, I never thought it was 48 pounds. 45 was pushing it, but I know it was a big fish and is hopefully still swimming. The point of the new record was clearly stated, to recognize some amazing fish that were released to be hopefully caught another day. Not to replace the MDMWRP.
"The muskie community has spoken. It's time to confirm and recognize the giants released each year, and offer a record keeping organization for the anglers and fans of the sport interested in a release program.
I have been wishing for a consistent, workable, and safe-for-the-fish method to recognize some of the beasts caught every year. Larry performed the work to make this possible, and MuskieFIRST welcomes this program aboard."
People are going to gripe no matter what, and whether it was said respectfully, or not, the above post just proves it. It's a new and different record... A majority on this forum practice complete CPR. This new record is simply a way of rewarding some of the lucky anglers who catch some giant fish. As EA said, there are way too many egos in this sport. If you don't like it, don't read it or comment, or even participate in it. It's a release record, plain and simple. Geez... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| AR , please don't take my post as a gripe , I support and promote CPR in the Muskie industry and have for years , but what is being created here is an elite record keeping program , which there already is , What about the young lad in the 14 foot tinny that doesn't have a gopro or a bump board , only a camera ,a measuring tape and his buddy to take his picture , does that make his fish less worthy , I don't believe so , my point is all the formulas in the world do not give you the true weight , so leave weight out of it , make it a live release record by length and leave the world record to true measured weight . And as far as fish getting Bonked and then the person is short by a pound ,,,,,,, don't believe it has happened since the MDMWRP's inception but I could be mistaken . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pointing out the extreme obvious:
1) This is a RELEASED category, and the weight will not be exact, or ever known, which has been said.
2) The 'kill' category is still firmly in place, and allowing for a release record in no way diminishes that fact or the organization.
Larry is quite meticulous about the standards and any one fish meeting them, and he has the final say. In the case of a fish where public input is worth considering, it will be, but think about this for a moment. If the fish qualifies for entry, there will be precious little to discuss.
Every young angler I know has a cell phone, and those things take pretty incredible video and still images, even when no cell signal exists. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| gotta start somewhere. Thanks to Steve and Larry.
This first record fish should be very hard to beat, and all photos/video of future fish will have to look hugemongous to be considered. How many of these fish will be reviewed each year? Maybe 5. Shouldn't be too hard to tell.
Put up a poll each time and have a minimum of 200 replies by users that have belonged on here for over 5 years. Will easily prove fact or bullcrap. 55x30 is a great fish to start this thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 116
| I like it. Nice work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Trophyhunter 1958 (Bill): I strongly disagree with what you are saying for the simple reason that as I have always maintained, all formulas are merely "estimates". This program does not change that.
The Modern Day weight record ("true record weight"), in my mind, will always rule since it is and will be documented in every way possible to assure accuracy. Of course there is the possibility that someone, some day will catch, release AND DOCUMENT (like the current release record) one that is unquestionably much bigger than the Modern record by weight, and will be accepted as the ultimate record, despite not knowing its "exact" weight. And that is not all bad what with today's angling ethics.
One reason that I wanted a formula that would be very close to actual weight of these giant released muskies was to end the misguided use of the standard formula (G X G X L/800). If the standard formula was used as IGFA uses it (G X G X FL-fork length/800) it would be much closer to the new Modified Crawford formula (L X G/25 -8), but trying to get muskie anglers to use fork length instead of total length is an exercise in futility!
So at any rate Bill, if you or others wish to keep that ultimate fish for absolute proof, that is your choice, and I for one would not have a problem with it and will welcome it if it is over 58 pounds! Hopefully, you will WEIGH her first before you administer the coup de grace' and follow the MDMWRP rules to get her certified.
Bill, as I have noted in a previous post, muskie anglers just will NOT "leave weight out of it", hence, we are using the best "weight estimate" possible. Using just length for the release WR just doesn't cut it and using a point system for length and girth, too, just gets us back to applying various weight formulas to it anyway to get an "estimate". A vicious circle don't ya think?
Best of luck to all in pursuit of either the release world record or the weight world record!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/13/2015 7:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Thank you Larry for the response ,i do respect the work you have done establishing this new record , but understand that i deal with these questions from clients and others daily and i just feel we should stick with what we already have with the IGFA and the MDMWRP , I have been very fortunate to have not knowingly killed any of the Big Muskies that have come into my boat and have no intentions of Bonking any muskie that does not exceed 65 lbs and yes i do carry 100lb certified scales. This is just my opinion and not meant to ruffel any feathers , I do wish you success with your endevours and best of luck to you in the last few days of the season , maybe you will be fishing beside me and i can watch as you make the decision ,PS I still like if you don't weigh it ,,, you can't say it
Edited by Trophyhunter1958 12/13/2015 10:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bill: I like it too, but now if you say it with this program, you have to say "estimate"!
I'm done for the year, but hope the last few days treat you well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 251
| Trophyhunter1958 - 12/12/2015 10:14 PM
AR , please don't take my post as a gripe , I support and promote CPR in the Muskie industry and have for years , but what is being created here is an elite record keeping program , which there already is , What about the young lad in the 14 foot tinny that doesn't have a gopro or a bump board , only a camera ,a measuring tape and his buddy to take his picture , does that make his fish less worthy , I don't believe so , my point is all the formulas in the world do not give you the true weight , so leave weight out of it , make it a live release record by length and leave the world record to true measured weight . And as far as fish getting Bonked and then the person is short by a pound ,,,,,,, don't believe it has happened since the MDMWRP's inception but I could be mistaken .
I understand now more than I did with your first comments but I will disagree. I, personally, think Larry's way is better than just doing length. To me and most people out there weight is what we think of when we are looking the for the "biggest" fish. It may not be exact but to me it is more valuable then just ranking length. I fully support this effort. It will be interesting to see how the list starts to fill out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| Great idea thanks Larry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| I don't want to sound negative but not one serious muskie fisherman I know is going to care about any of this. The fish these guys caught is unbelievable what a giant but a world record of any sort it is not. Dale Mcnairs fish was significantly bigger I don't know if there is a bump board pic with girth but I think common sense is enough to answer that question. I think the majority of muskie fisherman know Louie sprays record is not legit we all look at it as a joke. I look at this release record the same way because bigger fish have been released so what is the point.
Edited by esoxriebe 12/14/2015 8:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Riebe, common sense was all I was looking for with my original post on the queen thread! I was just pointing out that we (I think I'm a serious muskie fisherman) could determine what's what without killing fish! Everybody wants to take the high road and claim they don't care about records but, I bet if they caught a 59 x 31 they would change their tune! I care about records...maybe I'm egotistical and petty... but I'm honest. #Lancelife! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | esoxriebe - 12/14/2015 8:55 AM
I don't want to sound negative but not one serious muskie fisherman I know is going to care about any of this. The fish these guys caught is unbelievable what a giant but a world record of any sort it is not. Dale Mcnairs fish was significantly bigger I don't know if there is a bump board pic with girth but I think common sense is enough to answer that question. I think the majority of muskie fisherman know Louie sprays record is not legit we all look at it as a joke. I look at this release record the same way because bigger fish have been released so what is the point.
The point is you have to start somewhere |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxriebe - 12/14/2015 8:55 AM
I don't want to sound negative but
you sound negative ...
any chance i can get a Mcnair fish coffee mug before Christmas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| Ben, I definitely agree with you I think we should have a release record in place and this is a good thing I'm just pointing out who actually takes this seriously with out a weight I know a lot of guys who have certified scales in there boats in the fall. There is a safe way to weigh these fish in the boat and have a scale certified. That's the way it should be done in my opinion I have never caught a fish over 40-45 pounds so it does not matter much to me to weigh them. An 8 pound carp in the belly does not equate into the formula and a stomach full of forage is what really makes a big difference in the weight of these fish. Just my two cents |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Apparently, quite a few muskie anglers will 'take this seriously'.
The documentation of this fish was exactly what was needed to launch the program, and many more will be caught and registered. The idea is for the average guy to be able to register a fish with a good camera (cell phone these days), a good bump board, and a cloth tape. If the fish has an 8 pound carp in it, that girth will reflect that.
The formula applies to all fish equally as an ESTIMATE. If you want a real weight and the fish certified as a new World Record Kept, that program is already in place. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Esoxriebe: I do not wish to be negative either, nor am I casting aspersions, but to my knowledge, there are no photos of McNair's fish either on a bump board or having the girth measured. There are however, some pictures that were taken that McNair and Rotolo refused to share/show me...and I was in McNair's home shortly after the fish was caught. Make of that what you will. NO question that it was a giant, but just how big we will never know for sure. This is just another reason our new program requires absolute photo documentation.
So, for you to say bigger fish have been caught and released, is at this point, un-provable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| I see this as sort of like college football rankings.... nobody knows for sure who is truly number 1 but it generates a heck of a lot of "buzz" or debate about it. To me this just creates another system where people will never agree or be satisfied with the results. Heck, most of the time when someone has a fish on a bump board people criticize the authenticity of it. |
|
| |
|
| I think the point is that "beyond reasonable doubt" may not be possible but "preponderance of evidence" is possible. Again, my original post stated "if the fish had been weighed on a certified scale". The IGFA recognizes weight on a private certified scale. I would have no problem with weight being part of this program but I like the formula too! The reason is this: Why is weight the determining factor in records? What's more rare; a 53 with an 8# carp in its belly or a 58 x 25? Even if they weigh exactly the same the 58 is a FAR more rare and important specimen! I never liked the weight = biggest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1264
Location: Walker, MN | We should be using water displacement LoL!
This is easy for me to wrap my head around since I have never carried a scale on my boat and probably never will. I don't trust scales. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| I think the pics need to be cleaner. Top view of the entire fish showing the nose on the board and the tail in one image. Then the same view for the girth.
Change the name from world to MuskieFirst.
MuskieFirst Record Release Program
Entries are submitted to the forum?
Fish must meet a minimum length of 55" or minimum girth of 30" to be eligible?
Standings are determined by formula?
You can have year-end standings or overall standings?
Attachments
----------------
Capture.JPG (76KB - 463 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | myrmar: Yes, entries are submitted to this forum or to me directly ([email protected]).
There is no minimum length or girth required, however the "estimated" weight must exceed 58.00 pounds using the formula (L X G/25 -8) which does
determine "standings".
|
|
| |
|
| Would you please get off the weight deal? Call it score or whatever you want but stop with the guesstimated pounds bs.
Released fish should be scored, not weighed. 55 x 30 equals 1650. Its fast, easy and doesn't leave someone with the misconceived notion that we actually know a weight.
McNairs was 57 x 33 for a score of 1881.
I really don't get these goofy weight formulas and its about time to quit this nonsense and get down to a score. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NO.
This has all been covered in the previous posts. Please read them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Further proof that musky anglers will literally complain about anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jamesb - 12/14/2015 11:17 AM
I see this as sort of like college football rankings.... nobody knows for sure who is truly number 1 but it generates a heck of a lot of "buzz" or debate about it. To me this just creates another system where people will never agree or be satisfied with the results. Heck, most of the time when someone has a fish on a bump board people criticize the authenticity of it.
Then don't register your next 55X30.
Your 'complaints' were all covered, read the thread.
The system is in place, and will remain. I am personally really happy it's there.
Anyone who whines about a good bump board measurement image is either jealous or just rude because they think it's cool or something.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | Larry is in a no win situation with some people. Rap has an east coast west coast thing, now I see musky fishing having a st Lawrence mill lacs feud.
Edited by ToddM 12/14/2015 5:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 4amuskie - 12/14/2015 3:28 PM
Would you please get off the weight deal? Call it score or whatever you want but stop with the guesstimated pounds bs.
Released fish should be scored, not weighed. 55 x 30 equals 1650. Its fast, easy and doesn't leave someone with the misconceived notion that we actually know a weight.
McNairs was 57 x 33 for a score of 1881.
I really don't get these goofy weight formulas and its about time to quit this nonsense and get down to a score.
Are you serious? It IS a 'formula', which will provide an estimated weight that will be consistent.
That is a 'score' by your own definition. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | mrymar - 12/14/2015 12:20 PM
I think the pics need to be cleaner. Top view of the entire fish showing the nose on the board and the tail in one image. Then the same view for the girth.
Change the name from world to MuskieFirst.
MuskieFirst Record Release Program
Entries are submitted to the forum?
Fish must meet a minimum length of 55" or minimum girth of 30" to be eligible?
Standings are determined by formula?
You can have year-end standings or overall standings?
No on the name change, MuskieFIRST is hosting this, and is not the 'owner' of the program. Be patient on the rest. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | sworrall - 12/14/2015 4:58 PM
Then don't register your next 55X30.
Exactly.
It's really pretty simple. If you don't care for the rules you can either choose not to register it after you release it or kill the fish and enter one of the other world record programs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| I'm in support of a system for weighted whining.
Maybe a 1-100 scale because there is a lot of whining out there. Maybe it should be a score, not scale. Who knows? Girth may play a part, called the front bump board. Or beer gut bump.
Nice releases may help your score, so drop a bomb on video of a nice gastric release.
Can't believe I'm still reading discussion on this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That there is funny! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| I don't understand the animosity. Someone with no skin in the game has taken the time to alter a commonly used formula to accurately reflect the approximate weights of a great number of giant fish with known length and girth measurements, so the 1 in 100 angler can release their giant fish and still have a good idea what it weighed without having to kill the fish.
And this is a BAD thing to some?
If you want to know what your fish weighed, WEIGH the GD thing. If you want a "legitimate" record, club the SOB with a tire iron and take it to the taxidermist. Make sure to collect the blood, eggs, and #*#* that spill out of it, along with anything it barfs up along the way so you can add that weight into the total.
For the rest of us, who want to release our fish and not have to guess within 4-5 # of what it actually weighed, this is a GOOD thing. If you don't like it? Bonk the next 58 pound musky you catch. For the "normal" musky angler, and even the accomplished musky anglers, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of "not in your lifetime..."
This effort is the best I've seen in over a decade, as a way to document and verify the fish caught that are truly at the upper end of the spectrum, without having to kill those fish for no reason other than to prove your ^%$# is bigger than the next guy's. And if 'ya need to prove that, maybe musky fishing is not for you. Perhaps you should take up tennis, or basket weaving, or my "cat" hurts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | My water can beat up your water? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| Larry or Steve, all kidding aside, and I don't want to be negative, what is formula for the average musky fisherman's ego? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 242
| I have to admit, I am a little surprised at some of the responses here. Guys are bashing the idea of a Catch and Release Record Keeping mechanism? I think this is a really good idea and I applaud Steve and Larry for putting this together. There is a little level on honesty involved here, but this is still a lot better than killing a fish to prove it's size.
I also think it's cool that Larry took the time to modify a formula to more accurately represent fish on the upper end of the scale size wise. It would be interesting to see a formula (or set of formulas) developed with this same physical database for all sized fish to the same level of accuracy.
ARmuskyaddict - 12/12/2015 2:37 PM
the question is, what company will be the first to make their bump boards with measurements for 16ths of an inch?
To add to that, which company will be the first to make a bump board that goes up to 65 or 70 inches (and there may be some out there, but I have only seen ones that went to 60 inches). If you caught a 62 inch fish, you would essentially lose those 2 inches off the formula, because that wouldn't be a properly documented 2 inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| ToddM - 12/12/2015 7:18 PM
Great program and a worthy fish to start with. That being said it would have been cool to start from scratch then I could go out and catch a 35"er and at least for a day, have a catch and release record! I agree ToddM. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | ARmuskyaddict - 12/15/2015 8:34 AM
Larry or Steve, all kidding aside, and I don't want to be negative, what is formula for the average musky fisherman's ego?
There isn't a bump board on the planet large enough to measure it and don't even begin to try and measure girth, especially on the expert trollers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | Pointerpride102 - 12/14/2015 4:37 PM
Further proof that musky anglers will literally complain about anything.
Especially when there's almost 6 months before the season reopens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
Location: Gananoque Ontario | I had MuskyBumper make me a custom bumpboard 12" x 64" when I moved to Gananoque 5 years ago. I didn't want to have a tail hanging off of the board and not be able to get an exact measurement.
Reed Findlan
Attachments
----------------
IMG_1003-crop.JPG (380KB - 429 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| R Findlan - 12/15/2015 4:04 PM
I had MuskyBumper make me a custom bumpboard 12" x 64" when I moved to Gananoque 5 years ago. I didn't want to have a tail hanging off of the board and not be able to get an exact measurement.
Reed Findlan
I hope it was worth it and put to use Beyond a normal bump? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| sworrall - 3/6/2014 4:23 PM Larry comments: In December of 2013, Ed Barbossa caught and released a giant that weighed "at least" 58-pounds on an IGFA certified scale. Due to the fact that Seeberger's 58-pounder was under review for record, Ed decided to release this massive fish that 54.75-inches long and had a massive girth of 30.50-inches.
So does this fish weighed on a certified scale not qualify as the new release record? Just curious
Attachments
----------------
image.jpg (205KB - 434 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I would say no. The program did not exist at the time, so the fish, of course, was not presented for review as a result.
All the rest is speculative, other than a reported 'at least' weight.
And no, there will be no 'MuskieFIRST bumpboard'. Unless you haven't noticed, we have never tried to get into your pockets, and have no intention to. All this is free, and people still whine.
Larry?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Does it meet all of the criteria that Larry mentioned in an earlier post regarding photos and photos of measurements including one on a commercially produced bump board ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | AR wrote: "Larry or Steve, all kidding aside, and I don't want to be negative, what is formula for the average musky fisherman's ego?"
Larry: AR, that formula would be HUGE X HUGE X HUMONGUS divided by NOTHING!
Reed: Nice move!! I see a new trend coming and bump board makers should take notice...in fact, there may even be a MuskieFIRST bump board in the near future, stay tuned!
Esoxriebe (sworral): Correct. There is no photo of the fish on a bump board or of the girth measurement, which the new program requires so it doesn't qualify. In addition, the scale reading (in the dark, in the boat, on the water) was "at least 58 pounds" with no weight delineation above that readable...as was the case with the Seeberger Modern Day World Record. I know length was taken on a commercial bump board and the girth done with a soft commercial tape, but it was not documented. Had that been done, the new modified formula would have put the fish at 58.80 pounds, likely very close to what she weighed.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/15/2015 8:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Two days in and Larry has it down to a science. Good work, Larry! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Correction: Barbossa's fish was caught December 2012, not 2013. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1149
Location: Minnesota. | muskidiem - 12/14/2015 5:55 PM
Can't believe I'm still reading discussion on this.
Same here. Then again it's i'net....
Larry, thanks for all the effort you and others have put into this. It IS very appreciated -- by most.
There, I said it! I'm out!
Jeremy. |
|
| |
|
| I see no bashing. I really don't get where that comes from constantly. If anyone has a question or suggestion its bashing? I dont think so. A bit overly sensitive I would say.
I have never felt the rewards for smacking one over the head just get your name in the books was good thing. Any program that promotes CPR, as Gil Hamm had dreamed, IS good!
It would also be nice to see a list of fish that fit this category for all to see but, maybe this is the first. Its too hard to for most of us, especially new anglers, to find and remember these catches.
Maybe someday. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| I think this sounds awesome. After a while, It will be like a CPR hall of fame for notable fish caught. Ive always wished I could go to a website and see great pictures of the 10 or more most notable fish caught and released for different states or areas. Whos was the biggest by a couple ounces wouldn't really matter, in fact its fun to debate. this sounds like it will be an awesome resource for us to see excellent data and photos about awesome fish!
Thanks to everyone's work on this!
Edited by tackleaddict 12/17/2015 7:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| First I would like to say that I am all for a Catch & Release World Record Program and I applaud Larry Ramsell for taking on this challenge. I guess what has been bothering me is that I see this program as being "subjective" to a degree.
The top fish in this program is determined by an "estimate" based on a formula to derive the results. So...here is my hang up:
Which is a bigger muskie?
57.25" x 29" girth or a 56" x 29.5" girth? Based on LxG/25-8 we have 58.41 lbs vs 58.08 less than 1/2 lb difference on an estimated scale. Which one does the public perceive as the larger muskie? My opinion for what it is worth... is the 57.25" fish is the greater fish. Based on the build of the fish and how it carries the weight...the 57.25" fish could very easily actually be heavier than the 56" fish. If the fish is not weighed...how do you start splitting hairs?
Someone help me get over my mental block so I can sleep at night.
Again, I am not trying to discredit this program...but I am having some difficulty wrapping my head around it...and would appreciate some clarification
Thanks,
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 242
| Brett Waldera - 12/17/2015 8:46 AM
First I would like to say that I am all for a Catch & Release World Record Program and I applaud Larry Ramsell for taking on this challenge. I guess what has been bothering me is that I see this program as being "subjective" to a degree.
The top fish in this program is determined by an "estimate" based on a formula to derive the results. So...here is my hang up:
Which is a bigger muskie?
57.25" x 29" girth or a 56" x 29.5" girth? Based on LxG/25-8 we have 58.41 lbs vs 58.08 less than 1/2 lb difference on an estimated scale. Which one does the public perceive as the larger muskie? My opinion for what it is worth... is the 57.25" fish is the greater fish. Based on the build of the fish and how it carries the weight...the 57.25" fish could very easily actually be heavier than the 56" fish. If the fish is not weighed...how do you start splitting hairs?
Someone help me get over my mental block so I can sleep at night.
Again, I am not trying to discredit this program...but I am having some difficulty wrapping my head around it...and would appreciate some clarification
Thanks,
Brett Waldera
Larry and Steve could probably answer this question better than I can, but this goes back to the answer of you'll never know the true weight unless you kill those fish. What I like about this program is even though this isn't an exact science, it is also not subjective. All fish measurements get put into the same formula that Larry developed(i.e., eliminating the subjectiveness as to which formula maybe the best). This is the officially accepted formula for this program and as far as spliiting hair, if both of those measurements go into this formula, then the one that yields the higher value is your heavier fished based on the paradigm set. Your argument should be more on whether this formula is accurate or not or how trustworthy will fisherman be in their measurements. Since this formula was developed using empirical data of actual fish catches that were weighted on certified scales, I would be willing to accept it as the most accurate one we have to date. As far as the trustworthiness of fishermen, well, even under the old system of keeping and killing the fish, there were still those who tried to be dishonest, so you will never eliminate the ethical factor in anything you do.
Edited by Lucky Craft Man 12/17/2015 9:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| I see what Brett is saying, and when two fish come in at near equal weights according to the formulas, I'd say the length would be the deciding factor in which fish was "bigger". To me, weight gives a much better indicator of the actual size of the fish, though. A skinny 51"er, while over the magical 50" mark, to me is not as big as a really fat 4 footer. I'd take the fat 4 footer every time, but that's just me. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | A question for Larry - are there any C&R record requirements regarding disclosure of where the fish was caught and what it was caught on ? Just wondering if there will be any "Lake X" records in our future... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Brett: I "feel" your dilemma and I would say that the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". With two fish that close, it is a personal decision on what "you" believe to be the bigger fish. As for the program, the formula is the deciding factor.
Dfkiii: Good question, since it hasn't been discussed. I'm going rule that "where" the fish was caught IS required. Lure caught on is another matter and up to the angler if he wishes to disclose same. No "Lake X" records! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| Larry,
Thanks for your clarification! I do agree 100% that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
For the record, I am a competitor...I like to WIN...I don't agree with society and their "participation" ribbons...but in this case...would it make more sense to have a Catch & Release Hall of Fame, and have entries over 58lbs go into this Hall of Fame Program rather than an individual holding the World Record title? Is that less of an accomplishment for the angler to be in a Hall of Fame with his/her peers with fish of amazing caliber?
Just a my opinion for what it is worth. Again, I thank you for your efforts in taking on the task of developing this C&R program!
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, we are planning to set up a program that will 'rank' each entry based upon Larry's criteria. It will be a ways off due to a complete OFM site redesign Zach is working on, but I bet you will like the results.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I like the concept! Any thoughts to expanding this to state and provincial records or to a yearly record? It will take a very big fish to displace the current record and with such a record to over come there will be very few entries and interest may be lost or forgotten. This could be a very interesting record keeping concept that I think would be followed by many if there where more opportunities to enter. Perhaps a little more work than what you may want, but there may be people who would be willing to help. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Working on it, Doug, and I think I have the answer. I'll speak with Larry over the next few days and see what he thinks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 62
| Here's an idea . . . start with the formula and related picture documentation as has been proposed. However, as has been pointed out, the formula is only an estimate, and it will likely result in estimates very close to each other dependent on length vs. girth. Therefore, for estimates very close to the record (e.g., +\- 3-5%), put the decision to a vote of 100+ "knowledgeable" muskie fishermen, where the majority rules. The larger the voting pool, the more reliable the outcome.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I honestly think that we should leave anyone's opinion out of it and stick to the weight estimate and use it as the fishes score. This isn't a beauty contest, votes shouldn't matter. Why can't there be a tie while waiting for the next Queen?
Just my opinion and I'll probably never ever catch a fish of this class anyway. My home water doesn't make fish like that! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| The bar has been at at 58#. Most guys fish their entire lives without even SEEING a fish that could push the 50# mark. The number of fish that will be caught in a given season that actually contend with this fish will likely be counted on one hand with a few fingers missing.
We have a criteria for entry where there is no margin for error. And we have ONE fish that meets it. ONE. You can argue about it until the cows come home, but until you get one that can contend with the single entry? Well? Shut up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| That sounds GREAT Steve! Looking forward to seeing your program.
I have had a #50+ muskie in my boat...I hope that qualifies me to have an opinion EA?!
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | LuchyCraftMan: I have no doubt we will have issues to deal with in the future, human nature is in play. We will deal with each situation on its merits and come to an acceptable conclusion.
Dougj: And I like your idea for State and Provincial records AND yearly records, especially since I personally believe that fish the size of our current record is getting very close to the maximum size for the species and "beats" will be few and far between, as we are seeing with the MDMWRP.
Since with this program the fish need not be kept, I foresee the potential to get a lot more entries, and data, going this route as well as the "World Record". So, I am willing to do the duty for same. So, our current "World Record Release" will also be the State of Minnesota record release AND slightly smaller fish from MN can still be a yearly winner in future years.
This means that all other States and Provinces categories are "OPEN" with the same rules requirements, but the fish need not be 58 pounds or over to qualify! Let's not get ridiculous here, but I'll consider any fish of substantial size (hybrids included). Not all States and Province waters are created equal and not all can produce giant super fish. And of course, some States have only Hybrid Tiger muskies.
Also Brett, it is a given that all record fish will be listed for posterity.
Great ideas guys, LOVE IT!
NOTE: I posted this before I saw Worrall's post above. I suspect that we are on the same page, but if there are any changes, I shall let you know.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/17/2015 11:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Brett Waldera - 12/17/2015 4:34 PM
For the record, I am a competitor...I like to WIN...I don't agree with society and their "participation" ribbons...but in this case...would it make more sense to have a Catch & Release Hall of Fame, and have entries over 58lbs go into this Hall of Fame Program rather than an individual holding the World Record title? Is that less of an accomplishment for the angler to be in a Hall of Fame with his/her peers with fish of amazing caliber?
Brett Waldera
What he said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 12/17/2015 9:05 PM
The bar has been at at 58#. Most guys fish their entire lives without even SEEING a fish that could push the 50# mark. The number of fish that will be caught in a given season that actually contend with this fish will likely be counted on one hand with a few fingers missing.
We have a criteria for entry where there is no margin for error. And we have ONE fish that meets it. ONE. You can argue about it until the cows come home, but until you get one that can contend with the single entry? Well? Shut up.
Wanna Get Away ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 251
| I too like DougJ's idea. I would like to see this as a list or database of sort. So one can look and see what the top 10 from MN waters are (for instance) then click to see the pictures. People should be submitting any fish that meets the general criteria so we can start to build the list, not just adding on if it is bigger than the former biggest. That is I what I envision this as. It would be inspiring to see the pictures of all the biggest CPR Fish in one place.
I have Faith that Larry and Steve will make this into a great program. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Thanks to Larry and Steve for putting this together.
I hope guys on here will not scuttle the whole thing in search of a level of perfection that just isn't possible with type of record. I'm sure that the system proposed by Steve and Larry will go through some growing pains, anything like this does, but that is what it takes to create something.
I salute you both for your efforts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| esoxaddict - 12/17/2015 9:05 PM
The bar has been at at 58#. Most guys fish their entire lives without even SEEING a fish that could push the 50# mark. The number of fish that will be caught in a given season that actually contend with this fish will likely be counted on one hand with a few fingers missing.
We have a criteria for entry where there is no margin for error. And we have ONE fish that meets it. ONE. You can argue about it until the cows come home, but until you get one that can contend with the single entry? Well? Shut up.
Exactly...^^^ This IMO does not need to be picked with a fine tooth comb all winter arguing or debating other fish for no reason other than boredom because most of us cannot be on the water. Larry put his time in, has the rules set - they're very clear. A legit contender will be easily seen and there will be little use for further discussion on if it qualifies to take the reign. There are always blown up girths in the fall, but seemingly they never have an honest pic with the measurements to prove certainty of their claims. Weird. Happened this year as well, more than once.
We have a good system in place that should be able to make sure there are no falsifications should someone want to enter. If not, you have the option to bonk it & get it weighed. It's that simple.
I also like the ideas of other potential options like Doug & Brett proposed. This is just starting & I expect Larry will be working to make sure every avenue and all other options have been looked at to make program appealing to anyone that may want to participate.
The bar is set, good luck everyone! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 519
Location: Bloomington, IL | Still don't understand why, if a fish can be documented (like the Mil Lacs Queen) and weighed on a truly certified scale in a cradle with credible witnesses....certifying it with subtracting out the weight of the cradle, that a world record with a live release is not possible?
I understand most out there will not be equipped to do this, but there are some who put in the time/hours who are equipped to do this should they encounter such a beast. If a fish weighs 63 lbs. in a cradle and cradle weighs 3 lbs. 63-3 = 60 lbs. If properly equipped, really just a matter of simple math is it not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Two different programs. Accept that, look at the rules for both, and there you go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 37
| Larry, you are a brave man to take this on! I have a comment and a question:
It occurs to me that almost all of the fish that might qualify would be late fall muskies where the water temperature is low; therefore, a lot less stress on the released giants vs summertime when the water temperature could be in the high 70's or even higher on a few occasions. Hence there is a much better chance any qualifying fish could survive.
My question is, how long would the potential candidate muskie be out of the water to satisfy the documentation requirements? I realize there are a lot of variables to the question. Just an estimate would be appreciated |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | muskyhawk66: I would venture to say that someone fairly experienced in handling muskies on a regular basis and has their act together, could accomplish the task very quickly (60 to 90 seconds). The key is being prepared with the necessary equipment.
I believe you are correct that most will be fall fish and they certainly do respond well to handling in the colder water. Board and tape and camera ready, fish in the net in the water and...Go!
Having a Go Pro or some such type of camera going to can record the entire event without even touching it once going. It isn't rocket science, just preparation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8821
| Brett Waldera - 12/17/2015 9:24 PM
That sounds GREAT Steve! Looking forward to seeing your program.
I have had a #50+ muskie in my boat...I hope that qualifies me to have an opinion EA?!
Brett Waldera
You're welcome to your opinions, Brett, and my intent was not to shoot them down. But let's look at this from a realistic standpoint. Your scenario of two fish with similar lengths and girths coming close enough where there would be an issue determining who is the "winner" and which fish is bigger? How often is that likely to happen? A lot of guys fish for 20 years and never break 50", much less 50#. That caliber of fish does not even exist in a vast majority of waters where we all fish. Look at the state records for IL, IN, KY, TN, etc... There are only a few bodies of water out there capable of producing a 58# fish, and there are thousands of guys fishing them every year who won't likely ever even get a glimpse of one that big. I get that you want to "win" but what are you winning? There's no prize money. Might get your face in a magazine article and a few "atta boy's" from your fellow anglers, maybe a brief write up here and there on the websites and such.
But at the end of the day what we have here is a way to document the largest fish in the fairest way possible, with the same standards applied to all, and still be able to release the fish quickly and easily instead of taking it out of the system.
I'm just amazed that anyone could try to find fault with something that benefits everyone including the fish. |
|
| |
|
| Gotta throw this out there....any chance on a fly division? Fly records have always been kept separately.
P.S. The Hawkins fish would probably not qualify...the go pro was running but there is no clear image of the girth tape. It gets pixelated when zoomed... I'll get you another qualifier next fall;) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ben: Always a possibility, so we'll see, although you fella's did indeed prove that super fish can be taken with a fly rod (not that many doubted it). I was present for a 51 X 26 Tiger muskie on a fly rod last fall. So stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
| Wow 51x26 tiger!?! That will be tough to beat!!! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I’m glad that Muskie 1st has picked this up, and although all of contest details have not been worked out yet… a very solid start and very worthy first entry . Although there are many different record keeping organizations, with some “pet” records that only fool the uninformed, this new release record, as well as the modern-day kept record are the real standard IMHO. I feel that eventually M1 will have the most robust database of properly authenticated giants, and although we might not know an exact weight, it should still be of great benefit to the scientific community moving forward. I think it's also important to note that nobody has questioned the size of Dean and Dominic’s fish, and that properly authenticated future entries can rest assured that they will be similarly received. Hopefully, this will help to encourage those of you who have been reluctant to share in the past? I'm “all in” with this new program, and really looking forward to drooling on the future entries, along with what appears to be the vast majority here. Hopefully, my boat can get lucky enough to contribute a fish or two as well… for scientific purposes only of course Happy holidays |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ben and all...the "wind whippers" (fly rodders) are in! Got the following response from sworrall:
"Larry, I like the concept. I see more anglers trying fly fishing for muskies every year, and this can help grow that sport. I'm in!"
So Ben, if you can enhance that video to read the girth measurement...otherwise the category will be "open". |
|
| |
|
| I'll see what I can do!! If anyone else with more tech savvy wants to take a crack at it...feel free! The video is on the Bob Mitchell's Fly Shop webpage. |
|
| |
