|
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin |
so it goes on, no 60 incher this year. Where will one come from, I don't know.
How bout Georgian Bay
Seul St. Lawrence, St. Clair,
LOTW, Green Bay. Cass,
St. Louis, Erie,
I guess it would be Seul, or Georgian Bay. Hard to find a place to stay close to best musky areas on Seul. For the quality and lack of pressure lots of forage, tons of habitat, yep Seul.
Give me your best shot.
Mudpuppy
seul for me even |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Otsego, MN | Lots of choices...some day it will happen |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1038
Location: North St. Paul, MN | I saw one of those "special" fish just up from chamberlain narrows back in 2005. Lac Seul, northeast end...that's the spot, IMO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | Well considering we are not done on the st Lawrence yet, keep your ears open for a 40 acre shoal fish.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 259
Location: Madison, WI | Rowan Lake, Nestor Falls, Ontario (That's my best guess) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20269
Location: oswego, il | Tiger Cat Flowage, where the true beasts live. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3163
| At least one does unless the winter is mean |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1040
| I'm close to closing on a little cottage on Green Bay, Door County side. So I'm crossing my fingers that I'll get my 50 out of there shortly. 60? That's a tough one to swallow, but....
I talked to a highly respected musky guy up there...he swears that he's had a couple of 60's hooked and beaten at the boat, but all have gotten off before he could net them....as he was solo. This guy has caught a lot of 54+inch fish in the Bay, so I'm not really doubting him when it comes to size. And even if he's wrong about the fish being 60, I'm pretty sure they were 56+. Different kind of fish in the bay. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| My oldest boy recently married a Maple Leaf whose family lives on Georgian Bay (on the water w/boat) and I've been invited. So, the rest of you can stop wondering about that place...just stay where you are, and I'll let you all know if there are any fish up there....Really--Scout's Honor! (And, Yes they had Boy Scouts when I was that age!) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| ToddM - 12/7/2016 6:05 AM
Tiger Cat Flowage, where the true beasts live.
I'm going to have to put my money on Shoepack Lake in Voyageurs National Park. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 319
Location: Tomahawk,Wis | Marty you got kicked for eating the Brownies.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 391
| I would say if it's going to happen, it'll come from a Great Lakes system. St Lawrence, and Georgian Bay seem like the two most likely. Green Bay and Suel are those wild cards that could happen, maybe. Mille Lacs will see a 59.75 just cuz it's such a stubborn beast  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20269
Location: oswego, il | tolle141 - 12/7/2016 8:33 PM
ToddM - 12/7/2016 6:05 AM
Tiger Cat Flowage, where the true beasts live.
I'm going to have to put my money on Shoepack Lake in Voyageurs National Park.
How much you got? My cat can kill your pack!  |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I'd like to think the Queen is swimming with Kings eating 10 pound Lakers maybe around the Ducks and enters the river after the season closes Dec 15, and is back in the big pond before the season reopens.
Edited by horsehunter 12/8/2016 6:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | ToddM: You sell Mud-Callahan short! Shoepac, now there is a real sleeper...for a 35 incher!
Actually, although Georgian Bay gets mentioned frequently, the odds of a 60-incher coming from there are very slim. The fish there get HEAVY for length, but very few ever see the upper 50's, let alone 60. World Record for weight a strong possibility, but not so much a long one. The St. Lawrence, another matter altogether...the River fish just plain get longer, but don't have the weight per inch (normally) that the Georgian Bay fish have...the exception is very late fall (like now) when they pork up with fat and eggs...stay tuned, because as noted, the season isn't over there yet (although some nasty cold weather is on the way).
Green Bay is definitely a wild card! Although it is getting a LOT of pressure. Lac Seul is still a possibility and getting far less pressure than it used to.
Horsehunter, maybe she'll come in early this fall and you can intercept her before it freezes or ends! |
|
| |
|
| Ottawa River, perhaps... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2082
| My vote is Vermilion.. At least a dozen 57" fish the last 7 years. I'd guess there is more than 1 swimming that lake right now AND the lake gets plenty of "intelligent" pressure. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Larry you have a pretty good database of all the legit 60s that have been caught, what are the top 5 bodies of water? Bodies of water that HAVE kicked them out to me have the highest chance at doing it again... fish in lakes like V just might not have the genetics or the life span to hit 60"... GB is definitely a wild card... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | BNelson: I have already noted a few of the best picks above. The Ottawa River was mentioned and I wouldn't rule that out either, but the day of the really long fish from there seems to have peaked about 4 or 5 years ago. I know of five from there in the past 20 years that were 60's. My picks in order:
1. St. Lawrence River, Ontario
1a. St. Lawrence River, Quebec
2. French River (Georgian Bay)(based on Barefoot fish 1989)
3. Ottawa River, Ontario
3a. Ottawa River, Quebec
4. Lake Nip-issing, Ontario (based on MNR captures, not angler catches)
5. Green Bay, Wisconsin (based on known 59-incher caught there)
6. Lac Seul (based on known catches there in the 1980's & 1990's)
7. Bellaire Lake, (and the lakes of that chain) Michigan (home of the MDWRecord)
Potential or Sleepers:
1. Lake St. Clair, Michigan/Ontario
2. Lake Vermilion, Minnesota (based on known 59 & 60-inch fish there)
3. Leech Lake, Minnesota (lots of LONG muskies there over the years)
4. Wabigoon Lake, Ontario (I believe the potential is still there)
5. Eagle Lake, Ontario (been a long time for a true giant, but genetic potential there)
6. Lac Vieux desert, Wisconsin (based on long ago history)
7. Cass Lake, Minnesota (based on known 58.5 from there)
8. Upper & Lower Manitou, Ontario
While there are others that possibly have potential, these are the most likely in my mind (probably missed one or two that should be here, but you guys will "out" me on them if so).
Fun stuff!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/8/2016 1:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| tolle141 - 12/7/2016 8:33 PM
I'm going to have to put my money on Shoepack Lake in Voyageurs National Park.
Wrong strain in there. Lots of fish...none much bigger than 40-42 inches... Awesome times to be had back there though...well worth the trip... |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Thanks Larry! good stuff!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2082
| Larry there was rumor of a 60" fish found dead a couple of years on Mille Lacs , were you ever able to confirm? Wouldn't you put Mille Lacs ahead of Cass Lake based on fish from the last 10 years? ..I think the 58.5" you are referring to on Cass was awhile ago correct? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2082
| BNelson - 12/8/2016 10:03 AM
Larry you have a pretty good database of all the legit 60s that have been caught, what are the top 5 bodies of water? Bodies of water that HAVE kicked them out to me have the highest chance at doing it again... fish in lakes like V just might not have the genetics or the life span to hit 60"... GB is definitely a wild card...
Yep GB high chance..why? recent upper 50's... all 60" fish must first be 57" fish...lakes that have been putting out numbers of upper 50" fish the last 5 years make the most sense to have a 60" eventually with C&R .. if Upper Manitou pumped out (1) 60" muskie in 1989 but hasn't done anything in the last 10 years, is it a good bet for a 60" or even a 55" for that matter? Brad you need to hit the Chip .. didn't Louis Spray get like (3) 60" fish there
Edited by IAJustin 12/8/2016 4:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | IAJustin: Have to agree with you on Mille Lacs...what was I thinking (said you guys would catch me)? LOL Yes, there was a 60 found dead with a 5 pound carp stuck in its throat (bigger baits guys!). Definitely should be ahead of Cass on the list, in fact, it should be #8 on the top list.
Disagree with you re Georgian Bay...Yes, many upper 50's from there but mid upper 50's, I know of none over 57-inches from there recently. 58 from the Moon River in the 1960's. LOTS of real HEAVIES, but none had serious length.
Spray only had one BOGUS 60 out of the Chip...just sayin'. Longest legit one I know of out of the Chip was in the 1970's and was 57-inches...weighed 43-pounds.
Might toss Lake of the Woods on the potential list, but longest one I have record of was the 1932 world record at 59-inches long. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | My "revised" list:
1. St. Lawrence River, Ontario
1a. St. Lawrence River, Quebec
2. French River (Georgian Bay)(based on Barefoot fish 1989)
3. Ottawa River, Ontario
3a. Ottawa River, Quebec
4. Lake Nip-issing, Ontario (based on MNR captures, not angler catches)
5. Green Bay, Wisconsin (based on known 59-incher caught there)
6. Lac Seul (based on known catches there in the 1980's & 1990's)
7. Bellaire Lake, (and the lakes of that chain) Michigan (home of the MDWRecord)
8. Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota (60 found dead and Release WR caught there)
Potential or Sleepers:
1. Lake St. Clair, Michigan/Ontario
2. Lake Vermilion, Minnesota (based on known 59 & 60-inch fish there)
3. Leech Lake, Minnesota (lots of LONG muskies there over the years)
4. Wabigoon Lake, Ontario (I believe the potential is still there)
5. Eagle Lake, Ontario (been a long time for a true giant, but genetic potential there)
6. Lac Vieux desert, Wisconsin (based on long ago history)
7. Lake of the Woods, Ontario (59-inch WR in 1932)
8. Cass Lake, Minnesota (based on known 58.5 from there)
9. Upper & Lower Manitou, Ontario |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Larry you forgot Scugog
Is the guy that catches the biggest fish out of Shoepac accomplishment the same as the guy that catches the biggest fish from St Clair or any other lake .
Edited by horsehunter 12/8/2016 8:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1285
Location: Walker, MN | This is a great thread.
Larry- Without necessarily naming a specific lake, what about the odds of a lesser known and fertile lake, like from western MN or metro MN?
I feel like a smaller, stocked MN lake could kick out a giant soon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2082
| Just to Clarify my GB was Green Bay.. I think that was what Nelson was referring to as the wildcard..with 56 and 57" fish showing up recently most all being released who knows?
Edited by IAJustin 12/8/2016 8:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1040
| I smiled when I saw LVD on the list. Good times on that lake in the past. Good time. Never saw a giant out there like that, but you gotta love a lake that has a spot called "Valley of the Giants".
And yah, best thread in a very, very long time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 983
| I honestly believe there is a giant like that right here in PA..I believe there are couple lakes that could hold one and I believe the alleghany has one that size hiding somewhere
That video on the site where black guy is being interviewed by the white guy in the tackle store..based of the pics that fish looks like it could be legit huge none the less
Edited by 25homes 12/9/2016 8:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| How come no mention of Hayward lakes. Is it not the home of the world record? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 132
| No |
|
| |
|
Posts: 141
Location: Minnetonka | Wisconsin has held something like 5 world records...if you believe in fairy tales.
Spray's garage by 1949...
Attachments
----------------
 Tools.png (366KB - 497 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| I wonder whether Rainey Lake might be a possibility. Huge body of water, not a ton of muskies but also not a ton of pressure. One of the younger Lindners did a segment from there recently and they caught some big fish. The only time I was there I fished for walleye but my sister lived on the lake for a few years and in talking to a couple locals they said that there were not a ton of muskies but that there were some big fish in areas like Redgut Bay. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | horsehunter (Frank): As I noted before, there are many other waters that "could" pop a 60"...proper genetics is the KEY! So toss in whatever lakes you want to, including Scugog.
To answer your question: "Is the guy that catches the biggest fish out of Shoepac accomplishment the same as the guy that catches the biggest fish from St Clair or any other lake"? My answer is YES!!!
Masqui-ninja: "This is a great thread. Larry- Without necessarily naming a specific lake, what about the odds of a lesser known and fertile lake, like from western MN or metro MN? I feel like a smaller, stocked MN lake could kick out a giant soon."
LR: Thanks Masqui! As I have noted, any lake with the right genetics could be a "potential" or "sleeper". However, waterbody size and pressure both contribute to potential...bigger water and less pressure is a HUGE factor!
IAJustin: "Just to Clarify my GB was Green Bay.. I think that was what Nelson was referring to as the wildcard..with 56 and 57" fish showing up recently most all being released who knows?"
LR: Guess we had better spell out or "GB,s"! And don't forget I know of at least one 59 from Green Bay waters and also a 58!
vegas492: "I smiled when I saw LVD on the list. Good times on that lake in the past. Good time. Never saw a giant out there like that, but you gotta love a lake that has a spot called "Valley of the Giants". And yah, best thread in a very, very long time."
LR: LVD hasn't put out any real giants in quite some time, but the two largest hybrids ever have come from there and a 60" true muskie was found dead after being hit by a motor there!
25homes: "I honestly believe there is a giant like that right here in PA..I believe there are couple lakes that could hold one and I believe the alleghany has one that size hiding somewhere."
LR: Can't disagree with you 25...Conneaught produced a couple near 5 footers back in history (a long way back however) and I heard horror stories about Allegany for years!
25homes: "That video on the site where black guy is being interviewed by the white guy in the tackle store..based of the pics that fish looks like it could be legit huge none the less."
LR: Yes, that was a giant, BUT, I don't personally it was nearly as big as it was hyped to be!!!
WImuskyfisherman: "How come no mention of Hayward lakes. Is it not the home of the world record?
LR: Not really in my opinion!!! That I had to answer that question shows you must be fairly new to this site and haven't read my latest "Compendium of Muskie Angling History"; Volume I. All the facts are there for you to see and is excerpted on my website (which is temp. being redone, but will hopefully be back up soon...after someone hacked it who obviously didn't like what I had to say!)
MuskyMatt71: LOL!!!!!!!!
North of 8: "I wonder whether Rainey Lake might be a possibility. Huge body of water, not a ton of muskies but also not a ton of pressure. One of the younger Lindners did a segment from there recently and they caught some big fish. The only time I was there I fished for walleye but my sister lived on the lake for a few years and in talking to a couple locals they said that there were not a ton of muskies but that there were some big fish in areas like Redgut Bay."
LR: Very doubtful...I know of nothing from there over 43-pounds. Used to be a supposed monster by Elephant Rock in Redgut Bay, but was never caught.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/9/2016 12:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 784
| I think Gordon Lightfoot nailed it with the tune, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". She is suspended off the "Fitz" in Lake Superior. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 700
Location: Livin on a Prayer. | Somewhere in the Wisconsin River ..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 983
| LR: Can't disagree with you 25...Conneaught produced a couple near 5 footers back in history (a long way back however) and I heard horror stories about Allegany for years!
also tionesta alleghany resivoir and pymatuning ive seen a giant come out of pymatuning in last couple years had to be close to 55 or btr |
|
| |
|
| If I had to pick one place to live it would be the Hayward area. If I had to pick one species to fish it would be Musky. Love Hayward and prefer to fish the water in that area over anywhere else in the Midwest but I would not consider it a good area for a chance at a BIG fish. I also believe that all the hype about a world record coming out of the Chip is a big farce. Lake Wissota has potential of big fish but largest ive heard caught in the past 10 years was 56" with rumors from the DNR that they have shocked a legit 60" but I think just about every lake in the Midwest has the same rumors. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7105
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | She swims somewhere in the Great Lakes. She no longer spawns. You will never contact her unless you're fishing 20 miles off shore and 30' deep. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | this past summer I heard of 4 big ( not record proportions ) muskies caught by salmon fishermen downrigging deep water. Two of the fish were from Georgian Bay and 2 from Lake Ontario. Unfortunately the combination of the anglers not being prepared to deal with the fish and being pulled up from deep water meant that the fish did not survive. Who knows what swims out in the depths unmolested.
Both GB fish were caught the same day by the same boat.
I was not aware that old females reached a state where they no longer spawn. do they not develop eggs or do they reabsorb them.
Edited by horsehunter 12/9/2016 4:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | horsehunter: It is not a proven thing that "old females" no longer spawn. In 1986, when I helped Dr. Benard Lebeau with his work on Eagle Lake, Ontario, we had the opportunity to get the eggs from a taxidermist from a 57-inch, 55-pound Eagle Lake muskie caught the previous fall. These were the LARGEST, most beautiful muskie eggs I had ever seen (larger than OO buckshot). Obviously this "old girl" was still very productive and contributing greatly to the Eagle Lake gene pool!
Other giants, like Williamson's 61-4 from Georgian Bay in 2000 never spawned at all and put all of its energy toward growth...that fish (working from memory) was only about 18 years old!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | 25homes - 12/9/2016 9:42 AM
I honestly believe there is a giant like that right here in PA..I believe there are couple lakes that could hold one and I believe the alleghany has one that size hiding somewhere
That video on the site where black guy is being interviewed by the white guy in the tackle store..based of the pics that fish looks like it could be legit huge none the less
Lol... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
| Lake X when I catch it......... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | The next 60 will come from 40 acre shoal is my guess |
|
| |
|
Posts: 391
| 25homes - 12/9/2016 8:42 AM
I honestly believe there is a giant like that right here in PA..I believe there are couple lakes that could hold one and I believe the alleghany has one that size hiding somewhere
That video on the site where black guy is being interviewed by the white guy in the tackle store..based of the pics that fish looks like it could be legit huge none the less
That vid is great, the comment section alone...
My take on it, that dude caught an awesome fish! If it wasn't 60", it was way closer than I've gotten to that mark
We've been talking about the most likely places and while that is definitely where I would want to spend my time fishing for them, there's always that possibility that it's going to come from a super low density population. Where they have little to no competition for food. Could be somewhere like Lake Winnipeg where I've only heard of one documented fish (and it was BIG) or maybe some odd ball that gets an occasional fish enter the system during a high water event. Chances are these fish would get to one of these locations from some of the water we've been discussing. Either way, can't wait to see a pic of one over reaching the bump board. Epic! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
| In about 13 years, it will be caught in Pokegama lake, near Grand Rapids, MN. Deep clear lake with all types of structure,tons of forage, and the smelt are coming back in numbers. Hopefully, I will catch it, still casting a pounder, even though I will be 70 then........... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| oly67 - 12/11/2016 3:11 PM
In about 13 years, it will be caught in Pokegama lake, near Grand Rapids, MN. Deep clear lake with all types of structure,tons of forage, and the smelt are coming back in numbers. Hopefully, I will catch it, still casting a pounder, even though I will be 70 then...........
Ironically it'll probably be caught by someone trolling a size 14 husky jerk in silver/black lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| Love the lists and lists and more lists.... as for me and my world record quests, they will take me to some of these waters SOME DAY!!! I love Eagle Lake.... have seen 3 which I would venture to say were 60"ers.... have netted 5 over 54" and one 57", so I have somewhat of an educated guess, but you never really know the length of ,a fish that isn't on a bump-board!!
GO PACK GO!!!!!!! #RUNNINGTHETABLE!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7105
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | tolle141 - 12/11/2016 3:44 PM
oly67 - 12/11/2016 3:11 PM
In about 13 years, it will be caught in Pokegama lake, near Grand Rapids, MN. Deep clear lake with all types of structure,tons of forage, and the smelt are coming back in numbers. Hopefully, I will catch it, still casting a pounder, even though I will be 70 then...........
Ironically it'll probably be caught by someone trolling a size 14 husky jerk in silver/black lol
Attachments
----------------
obrienfish.jpg (8KB - 523 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Slamr: You put a picture of a mid 50 inch fish in a 60" thread why? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7105
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Larry Ramsell - 12/13/2016 1:43 PM
Slamr: You put a picture of a mid 50 inch fish in a 60" thread why?
Oy, I was making a point about big fish and being caught by someone fishing a rapala.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Haha, not to split hairs but the O'Brien fish wasn't even a mid 50"... someday I'd like to have a fish named after me though
|
|
| |
|
| Jerry Newman - 12/13/2016 2:55 PM Haha, not to split hairs but the O'Brien fish wasn't even a mid 50"... someday I'd like to have a fish named after me though
I've heard of a fish called Wanda, but not Jerry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 815
Location: Waukee, IA | Jerry Newman - 12/13/2016 1:55 PM
Haha, not to split hairs but the O'Brien fish wasn't even a mid 50"... someday I'd like to have a fish named after me though
Not even mid 50's?! Is 58" not greater or equal to 55"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7105
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Jerry Newman - 12/13/2016 1:55 PM
Haha, not to split hairs but the O'Brien fish wasn't even a mid 50"... someday I'd like to have a fish named after me though
Jerry Newman
04-04-2011, 09:35 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: World Muskie Alliance
Contact Person: Jerry Newman
Company Name: World Muskie Alliance
Telephone Number: 847 494-0342
Email Address: [email protected]
Web site address: www.worldmuskiealliance.com
O'Brien Summary Report
*All Tackle Canadian Record Muskellunge / O.F.A.H. / Ontario Record Fish Registry
*Line class record / International Game Fish Association
*Power Trolling subdivision all-tackle record muskellunge / Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame
Angler, Mr. Ken O'Brien
October 16, 1988
Length 58”, girth 30 ½”, weight 65lb. 0oz.
Georgian Bay, Ontario Canada
Woodstock, Illinois 4-3-2011 — Attached link ( http://worldmuskiealliance.com/WMA_OBrien_Summary_Report.pdf ) is the World Muskie Alliance (WMA) report on Mr. Ken O'Brien's Muskellunge Record as currently acknowledged at the Ontario Record Fish Registry / O.F.A.H. The International Game Fish Association / I.G.F.A. The Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame / FWFHoF. The WMA O'Brien Summary Report questions the validity of Mr. O'Brien's Canadian Record with scientific and circumstantial evidence.
The WMA will allow a reasonable summarization and/or excerpts of the contents of this report. The entire report may not be reprinting without the expressed written permission of the WMA. This report is property of the World Muskie Alliance. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Slamr: You neglected to mention that it was a tiny 4 1/8" long Rapala at that!!
Guess that fish didn't know it wasn't supposed to eat anything but BIG lures!!
As for the fish itself, it has been debated at great length on this great website. There are TWO molds of the fish that show it was 54-inches and that is exactly what I personally measured it at in 1988 in a frozen state. In addition, I weighed it at 56-pounds on two different scales, one of which was later certified correct.
As a side note, it is not reasonable to believe it lost 9 pounds in 8 days in the freezer. The current Modern Day World Record Muskellunge lost ZERO weight after 5 months in a freezer! Just sayin'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 815
Location: Waukee, IA | We'll in light of the new info on this fish all I can say is that it's weird for a fish to look so much bigger in a picture than it actually is. Kind of the opposite of the "mid 50's" fish that look like they're barely over 48. |
|
| |
|
| Endless search for 60"
Lake X!
just gets pounded and produces like no other. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: mercer wi | I think that 63" was 2 fish and the 69# was 30# of sand and lead |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Winternet trolling is a tactic that will often catch a whopper. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
Location: Florida | I am sure there are lakes in remote areas of Canada that have +60'' Muskies in them. Would be nice to see the current record broken in the near future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20269
Location: oswego, il | NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Webster might use this as an example for the definition of naive. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | Maybe Dryberry. I've always thought it would be awesome to fish that lake.. any input on this lake Larry??
Edited by JakeStCroixSkis 12/14/2016 1:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| ToddM - 12/13/2016 10:30 PM
NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Webster might use this as an example for the definition of naive.
Perhaps this fish discredits the Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame? There are those who claim it was falsified, who am I to say I never saw the fish. I have little dought fish of this size are swimming somewhere, this is likely near the max size limit for the species.
Edited by NPike 12/14/2016 3:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jake: Dryberry is one of those western Ontario trout lakes that certainly have the potential to put out a world class fish. I'd put it in the same category as the Manitou's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| This thread makes me yearn for a fall big fish hunt of a different sort in 2017.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | Brad P... That's why I started this thread. As usual goes south in a hurry with modern experts and gurus opinions. I actually saw the old Spray fish in Rice Lake when I was a kid.
There is no absolute proof the fish wasn't that big, scientific conjecture yes, proof no. Odds are the Spray musky was smaller than claimed. Fact is, it is a Musky of legend, one way or the other. A whole areas mystique was built on Spray and that fish. Great story and great history. I really don't care how big Sprays' musky was. Its the mystique, the legend, the history that makes so many of us musky nuts.
Take away the legend,(true or false) and you leave a gaping hole in our sport.
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8858
| NPike - 12/14/2016 3:14 AM
ToddM - 12/13/2016 10:30 PM
NPike - 12/13/2016 5:39 PM
In the record books at the Fresh Water Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, Louis Spray is listed as the World Record Holder of the heaviest muskie ever caught. Spray is documented as catching a 69 pound 11 ounce muskie that was 63.5 inches long with a 31.25-inch girth.
Webster might use this as an example for the definition of naive.
Perhaps this fish discredits the Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame? There are those who claim it was falsified, who am I to say I never saw the fish. I have little dought fish of this size are swimming somewhere, this is likely near the max size limit for the species.
I'd bet there's at least one fish of that caliber out there somewhere, late fall, full of eggs, just ate, in a large body of water with just the right water chemistry and forage. I believe a 70# fish is possible. Just not in Hayward. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| Jerry, you could call it " Newman's Own " |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | travelingfisherman - 12/13/2016 7:05 PM
I am sure there are lakes in remote areas of Canada that have +60'' Muskies in them. Would be nice to see the current record broken in the near future.
I believe Lac Seul puts out the most 55+" in NW Ontario. Even way up there they only have so many places to hide though |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | esoxaddict - 12/14/2016 5:01 PM
I'd bet there's at least one fish of that caliber out there somewhere, late fall, full of eggs, just ate, in a large body of water with just the right water chemistry and forage. I believe a 70# fish is possible. Just not in Hayward.
Highly unlikely indeed, but it could be there. As long as the boat stays in the garage you'll never know. |
|
| |
|
| One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| North of 8 - 12/14/2016 6:51 PM
One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had.
By huckster you mean good at lobbing dynamite right? |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | North of 8 - 12/14/2016 6:51 PM
One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had.
I think it's safe to say he caught some nice fish. He also hired other people to procure some of the fish that became his "world records". One thing for sure, the drive to own "record" after "record" is indicative of a man with a huge ego.
He'd fit right in with many modern day musky fisherman.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8858
| North of 8 - 12/14/2016 6:51 PM
One thing that gets lost when folks talk about Spray and his muskies is that he had to be a pretty darn good stick. He probably didn't catch a fish as big as he claimed, but he caught a lot of big fish. And he caught those fish from a small wooden boat, no trolling motor, no electronics, no map chip, etc. He caught them on short, thick glass rods, with a reel that the handle didn't disengage when you cast and on line that wouldn't last a full season. A couple years ago, someone on this site was having the vapors because they found out the boats at the fly in camp they were going to did not have trolling motors and my goodness, you couldn't catch a musky without one. When someone suggested he and his buddy take turns rowing if drifting was not possible, you would have thought that the guy insulted his mother.
Again, Spray was probably a huckster, inflating his catches to bring in business, but I doubt very many of today's fishermen could duplicate his success, using the boat and equipment he had.
Fished with a guy a few years ago who lived his whole life on a Canadian shield lake. I'll paraphrase a bit..
"Yeah, this is my first year with a bow mount. I still don't use it that much. I'm getting used to the pedal a little bit, but I'd rather just run the tiller..."
"Picked up this handheld GPS thing. I guess it's cool, but I'm just now learning how to work it. I guess I can mark stuff and come back to it later, but I've always just remembered where everything was at. And I have this stupid phone... I didn't even have a phone until a couple years ago. And no TV. TV seems like a waste of money. I'd rather read a book or a newspaper than stare at a screen..."
"I only fish this spot when the wind hits it just right. I can set up a drift and let the wind take me across the bar that comes off that point over there. When the wind blows from the water tower, the fish stack up between that brown rock and the edge of the weed line that wraps around the end of the island. Never seen much on it on sunny days or calm days, but a cloudy day with the wind coming form over there (pointing) I always catch fish!"
And catch fish we did... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Mudpuppy - 12/14/2016 4:19 PM Brad P... That's why I started this thread. As usual goes south in a hurry with modern experts and gurus opinions. I actually saw the old Spray fish in Rice Lake when I was a kid. There is no absolute proof the fish wasn't that big, scientific conjecture yes, proof no. Odds are the Spray musky was smaller than claimed. Fact is, it is a Musky of legend, one way or the other. A whole areas mystique was built on Spray and that fish. Great story and great history. I really don't care how big Sprays' musky was. Its the mystique, the legend, the history that makes so many of us musky nuts. Take away the legend,(true or false) and you leave a gaping hole in our sport. Mudpuppy “scientific conjecture?” Math and science were used to scientifically prove the world record was not as large as advertised, the results were even peer-reviewed. The methodology used to uphold the record by John Detloff when it was challenged in 2005 was referred to as “dubious” by their own experts once they found out how they had been manipulated and lied to by the Hall of Fame. SIAM: Fish Story: Math Weighs In, Muskie Comes Up Short Quote: "Is mathematics being ignored in a situation where it could provide a valuable service?" "I think it's slightly worse than that," the IMA director says. "I think it's being manipulated . . . that there's an attempt, by giving out limited evidence and going to different people, to come up with a point of view that supports a decision that perhaps they had already come to in any case."
With all due respect; the fish you think you saw was simply a Frankenstein mount, just like the other two Spray muskie records... unless of course you feel the mount is a good representation of this fish.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/14/2016 9:08 PM
Attachments
----------------
1939MountFresh.jpg (21KB - 534 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | If one can deny humanity's role in climate change despite unequivocal scientific evidence, why not follow through and defend the alleged size of a musky despite scientific evidence ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| esoxaddict - 12/14/2016 8:51 PM
And catch fish we did...
Except for this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track?
I have a question on process:
In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this.
So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success?
For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat?
I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet.
What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen.
I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
Edited by Brad P 12/15/2016 8:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2388
Location: Chisholm, MN | Brad P - 12/15/2016 8:47 AM
I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track?
I have a question on process:
In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this.
So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success?
For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat?
I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet.
What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen.
I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
To me, it's unrealistic to hunt for this one fish, especially for regular guys like most of us on this forum. I spend a lot of time on one of these bodies of water that has potential for a state record (world record by a long shot). I've never seen anything that comes close. I've never even caught "big one". Big would be 55 or so, for the sake of this conversation. How could that be? I spend productive time on productive water, and I catch my fair share of fish...and good ones too.
I guess in order to be a world record hunter, you have to be on the water full time. I work full time. Not gonna happen. Of course, you COULD get lucky. But what are the odds?
My goal is to one day catch a 56 incher. I'd say it could happen, but honestly, how many guys actually catch a 56 incher? Even 55 is a tough goal. Some people do it fairly consistently, but the odds are stacked against you. So for now, I will put myself in the position to catch a giant like that as much as possible, but I will be very happy with a 52 incher if the 56 never shows herself. 60? I hope someone catches her, and I hope it's a regular old muskie guy or gal that gets bit!
Good luck to the dreamers! |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I'd agree with Kirby here.., if you are going out with the goal to catch a 60 incher you are setting yourself up for failure... Larry has compiled a pretty good list of what he thinks are legit 60s in recent history... now take into account the thousands of muskies caught, your odds of catching a 60 incher have to be 1 in the hundreds of thousands? keep in mind, 60"ers are usually old fish, and not fat... on the decline... while the 60" mark is a great mark to hit, the fish more than likely won't weigh much...a better goal might be a 55 lber in all reality those happen each fall on lakes like Mille Lacs... 60" is just not a realistic goal in my mind to actually target.... my 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2388
Location: Chisholm, MN | And look at some of the people who do actually catch a long one. The guy on Crane Lake comes to mind who caught that 58 incher. Really? After all the time I put in on big fish water, a guy happens to go to Crane, of all places, and catches one of the longest muskies in MN history! LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | Kirby Budrow - 12/15/2016 9:09 AM
Brad P - 12/15/2016 8:47 AM
I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track?
I have a question on process:
In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this.
So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success?
For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat?
I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet.
What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen.
I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
To me, it's unrealistic to hunt for this one fish, especially for regular guys like most of us on this forum. I spend a lot of time on one of these bodies of water that has potential for a state record (world record by a long shot ). I've never seen anything that comes close. I've never even caught "big one". Big would be 55 or so, for the sake of this conversation. How could that be? I spend productive time on productive water, and I catch my fair share of fish...and good ones too.
I guess in order to be a world record hunter, you have to be on the water full time. I work full time. Not gonna happen. Of course, you COULD get lucky. But what are the odds?
My goal is to one day catch a 56 incher. I'd say it could happen, but honestly, how many guys actually catch a 56 incher? Even 55 is a tough goal. Some people do it fairly consistently, but the odds are stacked against you. So for now, I will put myself in the position to catch a giant like that as much as possible, but I will be very happy with a 52 incher if the 56 never shows herself. 60? I hope someone catches her, and I hope it's a regular old muskie guy or gal that gets bit!
Good luck to the dreamers!
I agree with Kirby here. I realize you (Brad P) was not saying this, but I don't think it is a good thing to base success or failure off of one freak fish. Sure, nice if it happens, but I am still going to be excited every time I see a fish in the mid to upper 40's range, and enjoy my time on the water no matter what I catch.
I also would hope that if someone does catch that giant, it is someone like Brad that made it his goal and dedicated time toward that. So many times in muskie fishing though, there is no justice. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Brad P - 12/15/2016 8:47 AM I know this will deeply traumatize all the annual winternet debate participants, but can we get this back on track? I have a question on process: In my view a fish of this size is not the same as just "fishing for size". It is a hunt for an entire season or part of a season. The fish to meet these specifications is only going to be caught in the fall when it is at max weight. In reality a fish like this is probably a chase over multiple seasons. The grinders on Mille Lac certainly know this. So if you were to set out on this kind of hunt, and lets say you have limited time, meaning you might be able to do 1 or 2 weeks a season. How would you go about it to maximize success? For me it seems like the first step is picking the right place to fish. Then you have to fish it in order to find the right hunting grounds. From there, how do you maximize your luck curve such that you are there when the queen is ready to eat? I'm sure some will say "Shut up an fish" and if it were still November that is what I'd be doing, but the season is closed here in the MN, so all we have is winternet. What are the thoughts on the process? Guys here have devoted a portion of their lives to catching this queen. I'm thinking about the lake I want to try, looking at forage base. Plan to talk about folks about size potential, etc. All before I make the real investment, which is time on the water to start my chase. If you think about it, this is a hugely critical decision. If I pick the wrong lake, then I'm wasting critical hours of learning by searching on the wrong lake!
My apologies, I couldn't let that misinformation just slide by unaddressed... self-control got the better of me.
I don't know about the 60" (I'd still like to see one on a bump board), but for giants I recommend fishing away from the masses in ultra low-density population lakes that have the right pedigree for a genuine queen. For instance, we logged hundreds of fall hours on Lake Belair just to catch a handful of muskies before the modern day record was caught there. Although we caught a couple nice ones, and we really-really enjoyed the solitude, we caught nothing that even approached the modern-day record of 58 pounds. However, I still feel a sense of great pride in the fact that I was able to pick that system off the map before it was discovered, and then maintain enough of a backbone to stick with it for several years. If you're considering this type of an endeavor, it was not unusual for us to go back-to-back 4-5 day extended weekends without as much as a sniff, so it's not for everyone... your not wasting time if you enjoy the hunt more than the catch.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/15/2016 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8858
| It all goes back to where you are as an angler. We all start out with our asses on fire. Buy this, buy that, fish here, drive there, flinging lures all over the place because you just want to catch a musky. Then you want to catch more of them. Then you want to catch bigger ones, and then big ones only. And then... you want to catch THE fish.
How does that change your approach?
For one, you gotta fish where she lives. That eliminates all but a handful of lakes. You gotta fish where she eats. That eliminates 90% of the water. You gotta fish when she's likely to be eating. Moonrise, the majors, frontal situations... That eliminates 90% of the day. And if it's a world record you're after, you gotta fish late in the fall, which eliminates most of the season.
That's not realistic for most, and it's a good way to be really disappointed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1299
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I'm going to go out on a limb here. First though, I believe that anyone fishing in the right waterbody has a chance to stumble into a super fish. When asked at my Vermilion Outing at Vermilion Dam Lodge in October about the 57-incher my grandson caught with me, my first comment was; "I have always said I'd rather be lucky than good." But, I also said, I do have 61 years of experience and did come with a game plan in mind and it paid off big!
So, not trying to toot my own horn, but rather headed toward something a bit different...I sincerely believe that there are a few muskie anglers out there that just have that something special when it comes to catching BIG muskies consistently. Their records confirm same, and while a rookie may stumble into the biggest muskie is a particular waterbody, the odds far favor those special few, MOST of whom are on the water nearly every day of the season, and especially during the part of the season (usually very late fall/early winter) when most muskies are at their heaviest weight of the year...length doesn't play that much of a factor at this time and often "normal" sized giants (low to mid 50's) can be of world record class and weight.
In the following cases, all of the anglers were experienced, but one was a bass fisherman; one was guided (the guide one of the best IS on the water all season long) and the third experienced and fishing hard at the right time of the season.
The Modern Day Muskellunge World Record of 58-inches long with a 29-inch girth and weighed 58-pounds Caught by Joe Seeberger (bass angler), had both length and weight, but another muskie caught by Ed Barbossa (guided) later that same fall weighed about as much but was only 54.75-inches long with a 30.50-inch girth. Our new MuskieFirst release World Record caught last fall by Dominic Hoyas (experienced) was 55-inches long with a 30-inch girth and calculated at 58-pounds by our new modified release formula.
BUT, the key to all three of the above examples was that these gentlemen were fishing in water with the genetic potential for world class muskies! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| So, does everyone just discount the claim made by Rich Clark of his 60" ? not stirring the pot. i remember reading about it 5 years or so ago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7105
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | tomcat - 12/15/2016 1:08 PM
So, does everyone just discount the claim made by Rich Clark of his 60" ? not stirring the pot. i remember reading about it 5 years or so ago.
For perspective on this fish: http://blog.syracuse.com/outdoors/2011/12/muskie_2.html |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I guess I should rephrase my question a bit. I've done well on numbers the past few falls. I've started to get into some nice size, but to be honest, I've likely hit the peak size for the water I fish regularly. So I'm starting to get an itch to try for something bigger. ie 50# class fish. I've gotten to a point where I'm willing to give up the numbers to focus on a true trophy class specimen.
The journey and chase of such a fish is what really interests me more than anything else. The chase is why I love this sport. So for me, this is just something new to chase with different rules, harsher odds, but bigger rewards.
I appreciate all the concern for my catch rate though. My sanity really appreciates it.
Edited by Brad P 12/15/2016 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 983
| Brad P - 12/15/2016 2:04 PM
I guess I should rephrase my question a bit. I've done well on numbers the past few falls. I've started to get into some nice size, but to be honest, I've likely hit the peak size for the water I fish regularly. So I'm starting to get an itch to try for something bigger. ie 50# class fish. I've gotten to a point where I'm willing to give up the numbers to focus on a true trophy class specimen.
The journey and chase of such a fish is what really interests me more than anything else. The chase is why I love this sport. So for me, this is just something new to chase with different rules, harsher odds, but bigger rewards.
I appreciate all the concern for my catch rate though. My sanity really appreciates it.
what water bodys do you feel you have conquered as far as big fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 62
| Are these stats representative of what's out there?
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/cnr_images.asp?view=lstats
Could be a censored sample since not all submit to the contest . . . ???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | tomcat - 12/15/2016 1:08 PM
So, does everyone just discount the claim made by Rich Clark of his 60" ? not stirring the pot. i remember reading about it 5 years or so ago.
I'm certainly not.... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I'm not discounting Rich Clark's clients magnificent fish either but I would still like to see pictures of a genuine 60” on a bump board someday. Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but after getting slapped around with the record BS and seeing some obvious fakes get paraded around online and in the press… that's just my mindset anymore. One thing when you're talking about a genuine 60” is that a lot depends on who is measuring, and how it's been measured. In my view other than a bona fide muskie fisherman using a bump board, you can almost always discount the length claim to some degree on released fish because they're just not equipped to measure them accurately. Although I don't think this fish was 60”, I've always found this picture to be intriguing... the extended cab pickup truck look.
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/17/2016 9:50 AM
Attachments
----------------
unknown .jpg (186KB - 480 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| There's been a few 60"+ caught over the last several years , The ones that i know of the gentlemen that caught them do not want the attention . Be prepared to spend hour upon hour searching on any body of water. Lot's of fish being claimed to be 55+ but like was previously stated it depends on the person measuring , if it's not on a hard bumpboard ,,,,,,well it's " nice fish "
Edited by Trophyhunter1958 12/17/2016 7:45 PM
|
|
| |
