|
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | During our circular and aimless wanderings in discussing and deriding each other’s personality and intellect in regard to the Spray “record” got me thinking (which has caused me much mental distress). Someone was commenting upon the proposal of having historical and modern day records and stated who cared about that and you don’t see anyone proposing it for other species. It was a very good point so I delved into researching why this might be the case. Began by grabbing the most recent issue of “World Record Game Fishes” 2006 issue put out by the IGFA.
It revealed some astounding (to me anyway) results. Of the 900 or so All Tackle records for species kept by the IGFA only 33 were set before 1970. And off these pre-1970 records 17 of them are freshwater (okay so I’m including Atlantic Salmon as salt water, sue me). I would have never guessed that it was so few. We always talk about big fish as if they were so much more common in the past, evidently this is not really true.
Let’s look at these 17 freshwater records which were set before 1970:
Yell ow Perch 1865 Smallmouth Bass 1955
Brook Trout 1916 Alligator Gar 1951
Tiger Muskellunge 1919 Longnose Gar 1954
Cutthroat Trout 1925 White Crappie 1957 Largemouth Bass 1932 Walleye 1960
Golden Trout 1948 Chain Pickerel 1961
Bull Trout 1949 Channel Catfish 1964
Muskellunge 1949 Arctic Grayling 1967 Bluegill 1950
First let’s weed out the species that are, well, less than hallowed. So of the 17 (hopefully I’m not offending any Garaholics) we will dispense with yellow perch, bluegill (sorry bream lovers), alligator and longnose gar, white crappie, chain pickerel and the channel catfish.
I’ve tried to do internet research on the rest of the species and here’s what turned up.
Walleye. A species with a huge following and many recent problems questioning the world record. Looking at pictures of Mabry’s 25 lbs walleye make it really hard to believe this fish is for real….it’s dimensions just are wacky too. Plus it is way bigger than any other fish from the area….statistically and visually it ain’t there (IMHO) although the IGFA still recognizes it. But questions mostly on just this one fish.
Smallmouth. Much recent controversy too…but looking at the picture of the recently restored record (by the IGFA) it could be that big…it’s huge for sure as smallmouth are concerned. Dale Hollow is historically known for large smallmouth…believable….but again questioning just a single fish.
Largemouth. Oh my, did much researching here, especially with the giant bass caught recently. Did Perry catch a 22 lbs 4 oz bass in Georgia’s Montgomery Lake in 1932?
Statistically the odds are monumental against this having every happened. With the exception of California the largest certified bass taken were just over 18 lbs in Texas and Mississippi. Florida’s recognized records is 17 lbs 4 oz with two “uncertified” fish just over 20 lbs and 19 lbs caught in 1923 and 1949. California had to transplant Florida strain (native bass were all northern) to achieve their success. The bass live in lakes stocked year in and out with rainbow trout….an oily fish that let’s the Floridas pack on the weight. When comparing their length to girth ratios with Florida’s in native states the Cal fish are way off the normal ratio. This is due to their heavy oily rainbow trout diet. They are truly generation X couch potato bass. Of the top 25 bass listed by Bassmaster all but 3 are from California….the others are the two “historical” fish from Florida and a recent 19 lbs taken in Japan. Look at the number of large bass over 19 and 20 lbs it has taken to finally close in on the world record in California…..which, BTW is not happening in the South. They will catch it soon. Perry was very smart to do the minimal needed to qualify his fish and take no photos and eat it. Hard to argue with no picture…but statistically speaking the odds of him finding a bass 30% larger than any other caught in Georgia before or since is exceedingly difficult to swallow. That would be equivalent (if we take the musky record at near 70 lbs) of someone catching a 90 lbs musky….uh huh. Hope springs eternal. This one definitely needs to be retired to the “historical” category, but again it is a single out-of-place fish. But due to the unnatural success of bass in California this record will eventually fall, although nothing in the bass’ home range in the Southern states has come close to doing it.
Let’s get to the trout records as these are the fish I have grown up with. Brook trout is very old record but 10 lbs fish are still caught….they are very susceptible to overfishing as they are not too bright. No photo so who knows. From what I could find this fish is 25% or more larger than the next in line….sounds like a candidate for the historical category too…although again, just a single fish. Next, golden trout, originally stocked from the upper reaches of the Kern River in California (their only native stream), have been highly variable but the record from Wyoming has little controversy. The next is Cutthroat trout….the record being caught in Pyramid lake in 1925 at 41 lbs. with no others even close. Its size has never really been questioned as the cutthroat trout in Pyramid lake which were caught commercially back then and sold saw many fish up to 60 lbs. Unfortunately, due to our own stupidity the Pyramid Lake strain of Lahontan Cutthroat trout became extinct by 1945. Other strains of Lahontans have been transplanted into Pyramid Lake but they do not get near so large. No controversy here.
Bull trout. Ah, a favorite of mine as I have caught hundreds of these beautiful char in the Swan River in Montana. They have an artificially pumped up record also. No one has questioned it’s authenticity from Lake Pend Orielle in Idaho but the size of Bull trout in their native range increased dramatically with the introduction of kokanee salmon to most of the lakes in their range. The Bull trout had a new food source and the sizes increased tremendously. Unfortunately, mysis shrimp became introduced to these waters in the 70’s causing a massive decline of kokannee salmon. Additionally, Bull trout have been eradicted from over 95% of their native range in the Pacific Northwest as they are especially susceptible to degradation of their native streams from logging and human development and they are relatively easy to catch. They are currently listed on the threatened list and are more likely to become extinct in the US then to produce a record. Could find no controversy here.
Finally Arctic Grayling. This record fish is held by Jeanne Branson who at one time held the Lake Trout and Arctic Char records too. She pioneered much of the fishing in the Canadian far north starting a lodge on Great Bear Lake which persists today. It is odd that of all her records I cannot locate one photo of the world record grayling which is 5 lbs 15 ozs. I believe there is only one other documented grayling over 5 lbs. and the Alaska record, where they are very abundant in the interior, is only 4 ½ lbs. Not a big following so this is less than controversial….would be nice to see a picture of the fish.
This leaves us with only two record fish……the musky and tiger musky (although tigers are not a separate species as they are a predominantly sterile hybrid). Recently, there has been a great deal of traffic on MHM discussing the tiger musky record. As far as state records are concerned there are two fish right at 40 lbs, then you have the old 50 lbs fish by Nobla and Lapp. Were they really that big? I don’t know but this is a controversy over multiple muskies back in time. A theme that seems only to pertain to muskie. And we don’t have to go into the discussions about the record musky as we have done that ad nauseum. But the thing acutely unique to the musky records is the large number of historically caught fish which have been dismissed as exaggerated. Lawton, Haver, Spray, etc… There is no other species of fish which has the amount of controversy over time of so many fish and the true size of these fish. We have the odd distinction of pursuing a fish for which the maximum size from records through the years is truly questionable. Face it…musky are a fish for which historical records are really needed. No other species has had scrutiny of so many fish caught in the past WITH photographic evidence.
It is true the only other species with such a devoted following, the largemouth bass, will soon see its record bettered. But that is due to extraordinary circumstances the fish has been placed in California. We don’t have the same luxury. Musky have a much smaller tolerance of acceptable water conditions. If Spray and Johnson fish were really that big where are all the intermediate fish between the high 50’s to low 60’s? California has produced an enormous number of the largest bass ever to even approach Perry’s “record”. There is no similar circumstances for the musky. Face it, to have a realistic record we really need to have a historical and modern day record.
Out of 900 odd species only 33 records exist prior to 1970….that is amazing.
Food for thought....comments?
Brian
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Since you so readily tilt arguments to your point, and since the musky thing is already argued to death, we can at least discuss the bass record. Absolutely no point in changing it. No funny stuff detected at the time. Bass in FL at 19-20 lbs are close enough that it is only a 10% difference from the biggest fish. Please remember this is only the biggest bass ON RECORD. There were many fish handlined, jiggerpoled, trotlined and trapped in those days, and not unlikely there were more this size. It would have been a challenge for the average bass angler to land one like this with the tackle many used. This was a river fish and would have abundant shad, and probably eels to eat. Good food, and oily.
The growth of California bass reinforces the Perry record in my view. Looks like there is solid evidence of this record being exceeded by 2 separate individuals in very recent history, caught and landed, so obviously the genetic capability is there to grow that large, and with the bass population in the south it only took one unusual fish to do it in the right place and then be caught at the right time. So basically I disagree with your contention on the bass record. Pass me a "wigglefish".  | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Don't know why we go to Florida waters to help verify a Georgia largemouth. But even the state of Florida recognizes only a 17 lbs. plus fish as the state record....again the 19 and 20 are very old records with question as to their legitamacy. But I don't think Georgia has produced another bass over 17 pounds....that's a 5 pound difference which is makes the Perry bass about 30% larger than any other bass in the state. Getting into fish that were "caught" and not verified is an endless argument. I don't know how you can possibly feel the California bass support Perry's record as they are truly a manmade abberation. Given their diet, which is totally unnatural in their native habitat, especially when Perry was around, all these large bass have essentially been manufactured. You didn't address the fact of the huge difference in length girth ratio from all the bass caught in the south where they are native. The California bass are the aberrations and pretty much prove Perry's fish was a singularly huge mutant bass or it was exaggerated. Doesn't matter as California will eventually top his record.....the recently caught bass certainly looked like a fish it was claimed to be....larger than the record.
But you miss my main point anyway. Each of these other species of fish have SINGULAR fish which are of extrememly large, or exagerrated size. In the musky world there are MANY, MANY musky of the largest size which have been debunked or are under question as to size. Musky truly hold a unique position this way. Largemouth, whether you accept Perry's fish or not, is simply one example of a SINGULAR exception.
Brian
PS: I certainly can't argue against my tilting arguments to my point....don't we all.....
Edited by DocEsox 3/26/2006 11:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | To take this in another possibly errant durection, I'd like to state what I did at the biginning of all of this when the folks in Hayward went after the eastern records and many of the big fish caught out there. Muskie angling is steeped in 'lore' and story, and at that time in history was not only mythical, but approcahing mystical. Stories of HUGE fish were as commion as the guides weraing red and black plaid. Exxageration was expected and part of the deal. No one really cared except for the few guys actually trying to 'one up' the last guy's fish.
Does it really matter? I guess from a historical perspective, I will quote what I have heard elsewhere: 'History' many times depends not only on the author, but the teller.
Mr. Ramsell is hard at work trying to fix the mess the train wreck mess the history record muskies currently is suffering from, and so are folks from the WRMA and the Hall. Now it becomes a thing of perspective. I see the folks in Hayward disproving fish on near whims of a resort owner/promoter/CFMS author (whom I have personally caught in more than one rather obvious promotionally directed absolute) and then balking at science that does, IMHO, a far better job questioning the Hayward fish. Double standard. For whatever reason, I see alot of that sort of thing over in our great Home of the Musky, and it is baffling to say the least. A thing can only be what it is, and the insistence that it's many things depending on perspective brings me back to my original comment on history. | |
| |
|
Historical v Modern Records-Unique Situation of Musky