|
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Here is two pictures of a 49.5-inch muskie that was caught off the same spot, around the same time only a week apart. I would like to think it is a different fish from the one I caught. The long tooth on my fish(first picture) leads me to believe it is a different fish. In the picture I took of Mark Sankey(second picture), the fish looks fatter, maybe its a twin. I would like to believe there is two of them.
What do you think?
Could it be a twin or is it the same fish?
Attachments
----------------
 49.5ski5x3r.jpg (10KB - 180 downloads)
49.5sanks5x3r.jpg (17KB - 180 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Hey Mike,
I believe two different fish for sure, unless in one week the fish ate about ten pounds of baitfish and forgot to exercise! 
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 600
Location: West Bend, WI | The bottom one does look heaver?through careful examination of the spots and bars I'm going with 2 fish.
Edited by plitzzz 9/17/2004 9:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | The bottom fish does lokk fatter, but maybe it is in the way they are held?
http://muskynightmare.tripod.com/muskynightmare/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 303
Location: Valentine, NE USA | Same fish. Markings are the same...brighten up the darker pic with a photo editor and it's easier to tell. Above the fish's left pelvic fin is a circular marking with a dot inside it, same marking, in the same place, in the other photo.
B
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
Location: Waukesha, WI. | I don't know if it is the same fish or not. But can I fish with you next week? in that spot and maybe she will eat 10 more lbs. of bait. Nice work, CPR pays you back!!
Evan |
|
| |
|
| Ten pounds of baitfish? or more like two 6# suckers, it is hard to tell but it looks as if the anal fin on the bottom fish is considerably narrower/thinner than the top, but that could be the angle but by anyway it(they) is(are)a (couple of) beautiful fish(es)
David |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Same fish. Even though the first pic is quite bad, I believe them to be the same fish. The second pic has the angler slightly closer to the camera making the fish look a bit bigger. Second guy also has his front hand forward a bit more on the fish and the rear hand back more, so more belly would be hanging in the second pic regardless of any other factor. Second guy is also showing more belly in his hold by tilting the fish sideways while the first pic is more straight from the side. First pic is also so dark on the top of the fish it's tough to tell just how thick it is. Markings are too similar to be coincidental. Based on those factors and a small amount of time studying the pics, I have no doubt it's the same fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I think they are two different fish as a fish cannot put on that much girth in just a weeks time.
After chasing these beasts for 30 plus years I have found that if a big fish is moved from a spot another of similar size will soon move in, there is something about your spot that big fish like so check out other similar spots you may find a third or even get the first one again.
I have read in a number of publications that Big fish usually stay within a home range and many times the ranges from other fish overlap, with different fish using the same prime spots at times there could be two or more fish on a spot and usually they are all about the same size so if you pull one there could be another or more.
Now Mike exactly where is this honey hole?
Edited by JohnMD 9/19/2004 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
