|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | World class muskies are indeed a rare item, especially those exceeding 58-pounds. While many giant muskies have been reported from history, most have been debunked. We won’t go into that here. From histories archives, there has also been a few that exceeded this weight and appear to have been legitimate, but verification and/or sufficient documentation is inadequate to satisfy todays anglers.
In early 2006, the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program (MDMWRP) (www.modernmuskierecords.org) was developed with basically foolproof rules, and it was nearly seven (7) full seasons before a 58-inch, 58-pound muskie with a 29-inch girth was captured on October 13, 2012 by Joe Seeberger from Bellaire Lake, Michigan qualified to become the first recognized Modern Day record…it is still the Modern Day World Record!!
Have bigger ones been caught since? Possibly, but darn few, if any, and none that have met the stringent MDMWRP rules, and none that I know of exceeded 60-pounds! Some examples:
In December of 2012, while the Seeberger muskie was being considered for record status, Ed Barbossa, fishing with guide Mike Lazarus, caught one from the St. Lawrence River that weighed 58 plus pounds on an International Game Fish Association (IGFA) certified hand scale. However, it was weighed only in the boat as Mr. Barbossa chose to release it and not apply for the Modern Day record! His reason: “Why would I keep it? I’ve already caught a bigger one”! In fact, he did catch a 58 ½ X 29 with Lazarus in 1994, from the Ottawa River, a near 59-pounder by formula (L X G /25 minus 8). His 2012 muskie was 54 ¾-inches long, with a fat 30 ½-inch girth with a formula estimated weight of 58-pounds, 12.8-ounces. Neither muskie was documented by criteria required in the World Record Muskie Release Program developed in 2015 and announced on the MUSKIEFIRST forum on December 18th and December 23rd, 2015. That program was begun recognizing a Muskie released from Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota caught by Dominic Hoyos on November 25th, 2015, just prior to the close of the Minnesota season. The Hoyos muskie was 55-inches long with a 30-inch girth, with a calculated formula weight estimate of 58-pounds. It is still the recognized Release World Record!
More recently in 2022, again near seasons end, Eric Bakke set a new Minnesota State length record with a 58 ¼-inch beauty from Mille Lacs Lake. I am not aware if a girth measurement was taken and no application for a World Record Release has been submitted.
Also recently, on October 24th, 2022, another giant was captured and released from Lake Ontario, by Cullen Veiders that possibly weighed 58-pounds (or possibly more-more later). Cullen’s story was chronicled on the In-Fisherman web site (https://www.in-fisherman.com/editiorial/worldclass-mega-muskie-from-lake-ontario/466685) by Thomas Allen. The muskie was 59 1/2 -inches long. Girth, if taken, was not mentioned. A comment made in the article by Mr. Allen struck home with me, “They simply don’t get much bigger.” How true, as the lack of entries in either world record program shows quite clearly!
There are several great photos contained within that article, showing the immense size of the fish. Also included is a photo of the scale as the fish was weighed on “…a calibrated (not certified) Chatillion (spring) scale…”. However, the photo shows only the scale. The fish was weighed in the net, total being 62-pounds, and the net supposedly weighed 4-pounds, although there was no photo included of that weighing. As I previously noted, Cullen’s fish may have weighed more. The scale used was a spring scale that “may have had” according to the photo, corrosion on the springs possibly reducing that actual weight of the fish. Cullen commented in the article that …”it may not be an officially certified weight.”
While the MDMWRP was mentioned in the article, Veiders muskie could not qualify as a Modern Day World Record due to its being released and based on the photos and information in that article, it would not qualify as a new Release World Record, because as Veiders noted in the article …”We took all the necessary measurements…”, but as previously noted, no girth measurement was given nor was a photo shown taking same and no photo showing the length measurement. I have NO DOUBT that Mr. Veider did indeed catch a 59 ½ inch muskie that likely weighed “at least” 58-pounds, but I cannot certify same. Sad! I congratulate him on an epic and historic catch and RELEASE!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1398
Location: Brighton CO. | 58-59 pound mark may be as big as they get, however it seems to be a long fish caught or seen over 60" that are skinny or past there prime perhaps someone will catch one of theses long fish with some girth or some egg weight if they have eggs at that age? And we hear stories of 70" seen in some remote Canadian Lakes but seen them and getting them to hit let lone catch them? But one thing girth rules! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1398
Location: Brighton CO. | One more thing, we've seen a fish that would go 58" and a year later in a area close enough to be in it's home a 58.5 was caught before the Ontario Muskie season was open. Besides that my dad and this uncle was a much bigger fish in a 600 acre Wisconsin lake this was back in the 1940's. Rare fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1735
| I tip my hat to anybody who decides not to register what may or may not be a record. It's enough for the angler to have caught and released a beast of a fish. No official recognition is needed for those people. Well done guys, well done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1398
Location: Brighton CO. | If someone catches 60" fish and it has a 25" girth that's 45 pounds not what we are thinking about! A heck of a fish BUT.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 760
| Fish of this size are in the following lakes, Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, Ontario. Invest in some down riggers. Good luck! Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Just learned it was girthed at 27 inches. The formula puts it at 56 1/4 pounds, which modifies some of my original comments. Still, a massive fish to be proud of! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota | I know that there was one this November out of mille lacs that was over 55” with a 30.5” girth. Being a Minnesotan I’m biased but I still think that if someone is going to catch one that hits the 60lbs mark it will be out of mille lacs. Obviously other body’s of water have giant potential but the amount of fish over 50lbs that lake has put out in the last 15 years is insane, and now they are bigger than ever with how low the density of fish is.
From what I heard I think that the 58.25” new minnesota release record was actually caught open water trolling a headlock in June but I could be wrong
Edited by Ogandrews 11/26/2022 8:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 504
Location: Ludington, MI | According to his interview on Musky Road Rules podcast, they were trolling and marked it on SI. They made several passes around the area and shut down to cast. He gave a couple cranks on the reel before lifting it out of the trolling holder and hooked up on a black rice Headlock. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 58
| Brian Hoffies - 11/26/2022 1:54 PM
I tip my hat to anybody who decides not to register what may or may not be a record. It's enough for the angler to have caught and released a beast of a fish. No official recognition is needed for those people. Well done guys, well done.
I wish this forum had a “like” button.
Edited by EsoxWanderer 11/27/2022 7:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
| Ogandrews - 11/26/2022 8:04 PM
From what I heard I think that the 58.25” new minnesota release record was actually caught open water trolling a headlock in June but I could be wrong
That is correct. It was actually on opening day of muskie season in MN.
I like that there is a length category of catch and release now. I believe this also exists for lake sturgeon, flathead catfish, and northern pike. Not sure why it doesn't exist for tiger muskie though. That's a head scratcher considering they grow just as big as pike do. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | The pics of Veiders release from another boat really gives an excellent impression of how massive muskies of this length are. The jump from 50 or even 54 to 58+ doesn't seem like that much, but for overall mass/dimensional increase that translates into weight, the photos really show it well.
From an energetics perspective, I think you basically need whitefish, shad or goldeye/mooneye in a system to create predators of this size. Ciscoes an abundant but smaller second, as well as gaspereau/alewife. I believe there is a correlation there with the presence of these species with 58" + fish.
The St. John's is turning out some real fat fish, it will be interesting to see what the next few years bring as those have a St. Lawrence genetic history and there is a shad and gaspereau run in that river.
Edited by Angling Oracle 11/27/2022 12:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Angling Oracle - 11/27/2022 12:47 PM
The pics of Veiders release from another boat really gives an excellent impression of how massive muskies of this length are. The jump from 50 or even 54 to 58+ doesn't seem like that much, but for overall mass/dimensional increase that translates into weight, the photos really show it well.
From an energetics perspective, I think you basically need whitefish, shad or goldeye/mooneye in a system to create predators of this size. Ciscoes an abundant but smaller second, as well as gaspereau/alewife. I believe there is a correlation there with the presence of these species with 58" + fish.
The St. John's is turning out some real fat fish, it will be interesting to see what the next few years bring as those have a St. Lawrence genetic history and there is a shad and gaspereau run in that river.
X2 on the photo from a neighboring boat. Fish looks like a one man sub. That perspective really shows width/girth. Amazing fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 186
| Gbay has everything you need. You only need to look at the O'Brien fish or the Williamson fish for proof. Next world record fish is swimming out there right now, who's going to be the lucky guy to put a lure in front of it's face at the right time? Probably some guy downrigging for salmon, lol! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | More giant news! First reported by Muskie Insider, more details and story at Outdoornews.com and click on New York. Wow, what a pig!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | While the MDMWRP was mentioned in the article, Veiders muskie could not qualify as a Modern Day World Record due to its being released and based on the photos and information in that article, it would not qualify as a new Release World Record, because as Veiders noted in the article …”We took all the necessary measurements…”, but as previously noted, no girth measurement was given nor was a photo shown taking same and no photo showing the length measurement.
*considering the "other" hall of fames basically using affidavits and sworn testimony and THOSE fish still hold up....having video evidence here as well as the photographic evidence, there HAS to be some way that the Cullen fish goes into a "top 10" or something.
And I understand without photographic evidence of the measurements, it's hard to say exactly what it is but.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1
| Hi Mr. Ramsell, John Pensyl here. First of all I appreciate you responding and assure you in no way was there ever an intention of this fish becoming the new modern day world record in your program. We did have 2 different Chatilion scales on board that night. I tied my boat off to Veiders' boat and assisted with all measurements and I, along with 5 other very experienced musky anglers present, can vouch that all were taken carefully and accurately. Both scales have since been tested and are accurate and identical. The scale used was zeroed properly before weighing the fish in the bag. The net handle was removed and the net itself was weighed with a digital bass scale once the fish was released. The beckman net without handle weighed 3lbs 12oz wet. I girthed the fish personally. The fish held a 27" maximum girth at its thickest portion and 26" continued quite a way down its body. I went back and verified 27 multiple times to be certain. We took these measurements carefully for Cullen, not for records. We made sure it was done right so he would never have wonder or doubt in his mind. It was an amazing fish to see and I'm glad Cullen decided to eventually share it with the musky world.
Edited by Whistler 11/28/2022 7:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Whistler - 11/28/2022 6:52 PM
Hi Mr. Ramsell, John Pensyl here. First of all I appreciate you responding and assure you in no way was there ever an intention of this fish becoming the new modern day world record in your program. We did have 2 different Chatilion scales on board that night. I tied my boat off to Veiders' boat and assisted with all measurements and I, along with 5 other very experienced musky anglers present, can vouch that all were taken carefully and accurately. Both scales have since been tested and are accurate and identical. The scale used was zeroed properly before weighing the fish in the bag. The net handle was removed and the net itself was weighed with a digital bass scale once the fish was released. The beckman net without handle weighed 3lbs 12oz wet. I girthed the fish personally. The fish held a 27" maximum girth at its thickest portion and 26" continued quite a way down its body. I went back and verified 27 multiple times to be certain. We took these measurements carefully for Cullen, not for records. We made sure it was done right so he would never have wonder or doubt in his mind. It was an amazing fish to see and I'm glad Cullen decided to eventually share it with the musky world.
Both of those fish are Wow ! thanks for sharing the story on the Veider fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 75
| What about the Macnair fish from the St. Lawrence area back in 09'? That fish seems to get overlooked a lot during these discussions. The reported dimensions and pictures were crazy....57x32 I believe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | John/Whistler. Thank you for your input and personal observations. It was indeed a magnificent fish. It was fortunate you were nearby to help validate this fish, and I assume contribute to the great photos, especially those in the water shots! As I noted above, since the fish was released it would not qualify for MDMRMP, which was mentioned by Cullen in the article. On this site there is a world record program for released Muskie's as well, references (and rules) for same noted in my original post. In boat scale weight does not apply. Again, thanks for posting.
ColdLabatt: the MacNair fish has been covered on this forum many, many times and you can search the archives for same.
Slamer: that fish IS and will be recognized, it just doesn't fit either record category.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/29/2022 9:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| tundrawalker00 - 11/26/2022 9:38 PM
According to his interview on Musky Road Rules podcast, they were trolling and marked it on SI. They made several passes around the area and shut down to cast. He gave a couple cranks on the reel before lifting it out of the trolling holder and hooked up on a black rice Headlock.
Fish was caught on one of his handmade baits.
Musky Candies orange belly night shiner 10” deep sniper. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2326
Location: Chisholm, MN | acquaman - 11/30/2022 5:32 PM
tundrawalker00 - 11/26/2022 9:38 PM
According to his interview on Musky Road Rules podcast, they were trolling and marked it on SI. They made several passes around the area and shut down to cast. He gave a couple cranks on the reel before lifting it out of the trolling holder and hooked up on a black rice Headlock.
Fish was caught on one of his handmade baits.
Musky Candies orange belly night shiner 10” deep sniper.
You guys are talking about 2 different fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Yesterday, as I was sitting in the Dermatologist's office (wear your sun protection guy and gals!) I had a chance to refresh my memory and go thru the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program (MDMWRP) rules (www.mondernmuskierecords.org). They are TOUGH! And necessarily so, as we want records that are basically foolproof, not done the way historical records were. BUT, they are doable. Most anglers use methods and equipment that qualify and "most" follow the law. The hard part begins after a giant muskie is caught and kept.
As many anglers now carry scales in the boat to see if they are in the ballpark before they would keep a giant (or to know what it weighed should they release it regardless of size), that is fine but that can be misleading if the fish is kept, especially if the weight shown is close to the current record weight (now 58-pounds or 26.308 kilos), so 58 to tie and 58-4 (or 58.0636 digital/26.422 kilos) to establish a new world record and then found to be less than the current record when later weighed on a Certified scale as per rules (Oops!). Of course, if, as we all wish for, the boat weight is over 60-pounds (27.216 kilos), one should be ok.
Ironically, although there are far fewer rules to comply with to establish a new Release World Record, as recognized on this web site, it is actually quicker, but harder to accomplish! An angler MUST be aware of the rules prior to the catch because everything MUST HAPPEN WHILE THE FISH IS IN POSESSION AND BEFORE IT IS RELEASED! So, anglers must necessarily have the necessary tools and equipment on board to accomplish the tasks in a timely manner in order to release the fish alive and safely. A daunting task indeed and kudos to Dominic Hoyos and his partner for accomplishing that task and giving us a credible release record to shoot for!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/1/2022 11:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I forgot to mention that these two programs are the only "logical" record programs available since the bogus IGFA record is 67 1/2-pounds and the NFWFHF bogus record is 69-pounds 11-ounces.
Other than the Modern Day 58-pounder and this sites 58-pound Release WR no other knowable credible fish have been caught since 2000, when Martin Williamson's 61-4 was captured and back further to 1989 when Art Barefoot got his 59-11. Neither of those fish if caught today could qualify for kept WR status except thru the MDMWRP. Everything else knowingly caught since has been under 60-pounds, so it isn't likely one is going to be caught to approach the bogus weights of the two programs noted above! Just sayin... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I think we can all agree that if there were muskies somewhere that got over 60" and anywhere near 70# someone would be catching them. We've got better management, more knowledge, better electronics, better gear, better fisheries, cleaner water, and more people fishing for them than ever before. Sorry, but if you can't grow a 65# fish in the great lakes you're not going to grow them on an inland lake in Northern WI. If the (now not so new) fisheries in MN didn't grow one when those first few year classes reached maturity, and it's not happening with the 54" size limit on our favorite Ontario waters, it ain't gonna happen. Not a stretch to be able to figure out that it never has before either. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 12/1/2022 1:08 PM
I forgot to mention that these two programs are the only "logical" record programs available since the bogus IGFA record is 67 1/2-pounds and the NFWFHF bogus record is 69-pounds 11-ounces.
Other than the Modern Day 58-pounder and this sites 58-pound Release WR no other knowable credible fish have been caught since 2000, when Martin Williamson's 61-4 was captured and back further to 1989 when Art Barefoot got his 59-11. Neither of those fish if caught today could qualify for kept WR status except thru the MDMWRP. Everything else knowingly caught since has been under 60-pounds, so it isn't likely one is going to be caught to approach the bogus weights of the two programs noted above! Just sayin...
Article written at the time of the catch, put the estimated weight of the McNair fish, with its incredible 32" girth at as much as 75 pounds. Any thoughts on that? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ya, not! Even "IF" it had a 32 inch girth (unproven) it would be closer to 65lb
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/1/2022 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Larry, what is your opinion on the margin of error with the commonly used formulas when it comes to fish of this caliber? Seems at some point (on either the high or low end) accuracy would tend to fall off.
And I question some of the reported girth measurements as well. Just for fun I took a measuring tape to various things around the house for perspective. My dog is 31" and he's pretty stocky. I was 32" back in the day (not anymore!) my wife hit me when I went near her with the tape so we'll never know...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | EA: First let me reiterate that formulas are merely "estimates"! I humbly believe that the newest Crawford Formula (L X G /25 minus 8) for muskies OVER 50-pounds (for muskies under 50-pounds the deduction is 10) is the best as it was derived from a fair number of that caliber of fish. Still, just an estimate. The ONLY true test is to keep the fish and weigh it on a Certified Scale legal for trade on-shore and follow MDMWRP rules.
As you note, girth measurements can be suspect, that is why a photo of the measurement of released fish is required and even that isn't foolproof. For kept fish it is moot as the actual certified weight is what matters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Veiders was on the latest Backlash. Really engrossing story all the way around. Lots of credit to the dedication for the cadre of folks out there pulling all-nighters in late fall for the chance at a big one. Everything he says about pushing the boundaries and trying something different dead-on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| I feel the record fish will come from lake Michigan. I got a text today with a fish that will be famous soon, from lake Michigan. The number of humongous, glutinous, bloated fish that I've seen from lake Michigan lately is remarkable. Salmon and muskie alike are obviously eating great there. That lake is healed up and on the rise. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| Well that didnt take long to end up here, guess nothing stays quiet anymore.... it would fit my jeans, but will not say measurements as I did not catch it. Also released.
Edited by bbeaupre 12/8/2022 8:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
Location: NE WI | Lake Michgan fish was reported at 55X29.5 . Saw pics but was not there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| I’ll confirm measurements since it is on here now. Just under 55 with no tail pinch. 29 3/8” girth. Thought 29.5 at one point, or just too excited during measuring, but pics show 29 3/8”. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Pic shows 55 for length. At 29 3/8 it calculates to 56.63 pounds (56 pounds 10 ounces)! Almost another "Queen"! Congrats to the angler. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 613
Location: Michigan | https://www.facebook.com/SmokeysOnTheBay/posts/pfbid02oCRWmnp5cXckjk... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1398
Location: Brighton CO. | There's a lot of big water out there (Great Lakes and the rivers that flow into them) and throw in a lot of fatty forage to boot and these fish have never seen a lure. To coin a praise "the needle in the haystack" The problem is the needle is still a needle not a railroad spike. If these fish only grow to certain size? were there!
Or take a large but manageable water and try using Giant lure (use a solid ring to connect two 18" pieces of bucktail wire and take a cutting torch to the garbage can lid) and try your luck. |
|
| |
|
| Know folks who catch big musky on Green Bay and certainly seems like potential is there for a record.
What about Lake St. Clair? I know they catch amazing numbers of fish there at times and some are big. Does that have the potential to kick out a giant? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Twin Cities Metro | I think to catch the Queens you have to have "goldilocks" angling pressure. Too much pressure and they run the risk of post-angling mortality cutting their lives short (being caught once per year for 20 years weeds out a lot of fish). Too little pressure and the few fish that make it to Queen status won't be caught because of the "needle in a haystack" effect.
The amount of pressure needs to be juuuust right.
That's why I wonder about St. Clair. Awesome fishery, but so highly pressured that I think the few muskies that (genetically) can get to 50+lbs likely have their lives cut short from being caught too often. A lot of Minnesota fisheries probably suffer the same problem. That's just speculation on my part, though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 504
Location: Ludington, MI | It's no coincidence that we have a new record Chinook when salmon populations were low. Everybody wants to talk about geography and genetics and available prey. It's also about competition. If you have something go through and clip half the predators, the ones that are left will approach record size. This is why none of us should be left alone in a pizza buffet.
Edited by tundrawalker00 12/10/2022 1:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 324
| Far and away post of the year goes to EA for his comment on his wifes 'girth'. |
|
| |
Let's Talk World Record Class Muskies