|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/04.02.2006/1036/Modern.Day... | |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Sweet, A reason to keep Muskies | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | OK
The article doesn't say how to make submisssions and all the requirements besides the minimum weight.
It sure would be nice to know before the season opens so we all can be prepared and not miss some crazy rule for submision.
First off, I would hope provisions are in place for released fish, but there is the question. How do you get a certified weight on a fish and then successfully let it go?
After all I plan on breaking the 60 pound mark this year, how about you? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here you go:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/04.02.2006/1037/Rules,.Reg...
As far as the comment from obfuscate, that's ridiculous. It's still up to any angler as a personal decision whether to release or keep a really big fish. Nothing has changed there in any way, form, or fashion.
Any really big muskie can be released, it's up to the individual. I think that subject has been covered multiple times here on MuskieFIRST. If I catch a 60# fish ( I was probably within 6 or 7# of that once and she went back) , she probably goes back. 70#, you will hear the thump in Atalnta.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Being that every angler has the option to catch and keep or release a fish, is there any chance that there can be two categories? I know that I have no desire to keep any fish of any size, and because of that it would be nice to have a release category.
What I would propose is a release division whereas the combined calculation of length and girth is somehow used, along with a verified photo that would somehow show the evidence of length at a minimum. I'm not exactly sure how you could obtain a legitimate photo of a girth measurement, but if one could be somehow done, it would be a good thing.
Playing devil's advocate here for a moment: About the only question I have about this whole idea is how does it look to the rest of the fishing community in general? Will this new record keeping body ever be considered to be a reputable, respected institution?
If the IGFA is considered a legitimate, well respected, and known record-keeping body, why not just use that institution? Will the WRMA be disbanded or will they continue to work with the IGFA in verifying/disproving the records listed there?
Steve
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The WRMA remains active. Im pretty sure there has been no discussion about a 'release catagory' at this point. | |
| | |
| When it comes down to it..a 60lb vs. 70lb is a meal...I would have a hard time not thumping either. Not because I want to, but once you land, handle, photo and such I think release could perhaps be a bit pointless with a fish of this size...I would be curious to hear others thoughts anyhow...kept or released...great fish either way..Ben | |
| | |
| sworrall - 4/2/2006 10:27 PM
As far as the comment from obfuscate, that's ridiculous.
A 60 Pound Muskie now means $$$ and self glory it once would not have meant. In my opinion it's ridiculous and naive to think otherwise. That seems like enough incentive for someone to keep a big fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | That last post was by me.
I'd also like to add there are plenty of fisherman dumb enough to think their 40 pound muskie is a 60 pounder and they'll keep it hoping it's a record.
Edited by Obfuscate Musky 4/3/2006 7:50 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I would strongly disagree. A 40# fish is fairly common, but a 60# fish is not. How many REAL and provable 60# and larger fish have been caught over the course of Muskie angling history? Even if we assume all records now in question or tossed out in the past, it's only a handfull and only a couple in the last 20 years. I would also submit most if not all anglers who would release any large muskie, even a 40# fish, know the difference between a 40# and 60# fish. The incidental catch by someone not a Muskie angler isn't an issue, as that person won't know what record is what, and in any case STILL will know a 40# fish is not 60#.I bet most fishermen and women are not as 'dumb' as you think.
A true 60# fish meant 'self glory' before this program was endorsed by MI and offered to the muskie angling public, didn't it? I know that many anglers right here on this board would have kept a true 60# fish if they caught one before this program. the chances are very slim that will happen to any of us, but if it does and the fish is legally kept, my congratulations will be LOUDLY posted and I'd go to any show where that fish was on display, just to look at it for future reference and with total awe.
Who on this board has caught and released a 60# fish? Anyone?
| |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | sworrall - 4/3/2006 9:11 AM
I would strongly disagree. A 40# fish is fairly common, but a 60# fish is not.
Well, we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. Yeah, most hardcore musky guys do know the differance. I'd submit most people you fish with do. However there are many newbies and inexperianced anglers who may not know the differance. A good friend of mine always way over guesses badly every fish that's caght in my boat. I think there are many guys like that who could think their 40-50 pounder is 60 and keep a fish thinking it could lead to something financially or to become "known". Don't get me wrong, people have every legal right to keep smaller fish. I just think even if only a couple 50-70 pounders are kept because of this NEW orginization it's too many. My 2 cents. | |
| | |
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | I totally agree with Steve...except for the thump. If it is 70 lbs...BANG! Just like the old days.
I don't think there will be fish killed because of this. I was at the meeting when Larry Ramsell brought it before the board of MI. I think it is a great idea and the people on the committee is outstanding leaders of the muskie world. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Glad to see somebody took my suggestion serious.
Any bets on when the first submission comes in? My bet is November, from GB. Who from? Me, of course! | |
| | |
| A record program for musky fisherman by musky fisherman - this is a great idea! It's a good way to just bypass those phony FWFHF and IGFA records and give everyone (who's interested) a mark to shoot for this year. It would really be a shame if someone caught a 66 pounder and didn't properly record it because of the phony's.
I doubt that anyone other than a musky fisherman will know about this if they luck into a 60, AND anyone who is lucky enough to catch a 60 would most likely keep it anyway. If someone is too stupid to know the difference between a 40 and a 60 they would be keeping it anyway.
Does anyone know if Williams and O'Brien's could be entered in this program? | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| I have to admit to having mixed feelings about this news. Perhaps some of this is due to unaswered quetions I have and some of you may be able to help explain.
My understanding is that this proposal was brought up at the MI International spring meeting. Does this mean that Muskies Inc. will now be considered the official record keeping agency? If this is incorrect then I assume "the committee" will act as the record keeping agency with the support of Muskies Inc. Please clear this up.
The group of people listed certainly represents some of the clearcut leaders in the activity and has representation from people with scientific/fisheries backgrounds. I have no problem with that. How will committee members be determined in the future? Is there a term of office or a protocol for selecting members of the committee?
How does the committee establish itself as the official record keeper in the context of the larger sportfishing community? Are other record keeping organizations (IGFA, FWFHOF, etc.) willing to accept records established by this committee?
The ongoing debate between WRMA and FWFHOF has been well documented. Have efforts to change record status been also presented to IGFA? I only know of two record keeping organizations IGFA and FWFHOF so please excuse me if I am excluding others. Has the IGFA (or others) refused to examine the findings of WRMA? If the answer to this is no then I would question why such a procedure wasn't pursued to use an already existing organization as the record keeping entitiy for our area of the sport.
Do other fish specific organizations maintain their own records outside of organizations like IGFA? For example, are there records maintained by Trout Unlimited that differ from IGFA records?
If someone could help answer these questions it would help me to decide just how to feel about this. I agree that the time had come for the clouded records of the past to come under examination. I think we all would like a clearcut definition of what constitutes a world record. Are we now abandoning fish from the past that have had reasonable documentation? While I would like to think that this committee would provide a definitive path to record keeping I am concerned that it will only serve to further splinter what is already a small segment of the greater sportfishing community. The sportsman in general will have to decide wether the FWFHOF, IGFA, or Committee record is the real one. Regional favorites certainlty are a factor in this concern. This is somewhat remeniscent of having various boxing organizations determine who is "the champ".
I'll refrain from expressing more views until I get a chance to chew on this a bit. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on my questions. | |
| | |
| Thank you Pete, You are one of the few that has some sense. Marv. | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| OK, another question just occured to me. I believe that usually Muskies Inc. propoals are something that gets around to the RVP's and then the various chapters are "supposed" to find out from their repective memberships on how they would like the rep to vote. Am I wrong on this? Was this proposal already "out there" and had an opportunity to go through the general membership? I suspect not since I really didin't hear any chatter prior to this weekend. If I'm wrong about this then maybe somebody who is an officer of MI can comment about the procedure. Maybe it is just that I had been a member of a chapter who generally asked the membership at the meetings about how they wanted to vote on various issues prior to an International meeting. If this is actually the accepted procedure why was it not followed in this case?
The formation of such a new organization is a serious step. How much time was allocated to this issue? Did everyone have a chance to look over the bylaws or whatever you call the document that has been posted to agree to the procedure for determining the world record? Seems to me you could have spent a whole weekend just going through the fine points of that document.
Here's the thing that bothers me about this. Just as the FWFHOF was criticized for doing things in "closed door sessions" is this not similar? If a new organization is to be accepted by not only the musky commiuntiy but the entire sportfishing world I think the matters of credibility should be compeletely above board. While I have stated that I'm generally in favor of examining and making determinations as to the validity of old records I'm just very concerned that this "appears" to be something that got hustled through based soley on the prominent names of the involved parties.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Pete,
It was brought before the Muskies Inc. to support it. MI will not do anything more than that. There are members that are on the BOD of Muskies Inc. I hope this helps out.
It was not brought to the RVP's attention prior to the meeting.
MI did not feel the people involved (who were from all facets for the muskie fishing industry and also with different views) would by any way, shape or form would tarnish the industry. Like you mentioned...these people are some of the best out there with knowledge that far exceeds most.
Edited by Vince Weirick 4/3/2006 3:45 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pete,
Contact Larry via email with your concerns, I'm sure he will answer them carefully and completely. | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Pete......the WRMA report wasn't submitted to the IGFA since they do not recognize the Spray fish as the current, but instead have Cal Johnson's fish as the record. I assume when the WRMA has but their efforts into verifying the Johnson fish, if they feel it is exaggerated I'm sure they will submit a report to the IGFA for their evaluation of the subject. Unless specifically petitioned in this way I'm sure the IGFA would not voluntarily say anything about the WR musky mess.
I would think part of the reason for doing this new program is that the musky record is truly one at the heart of the NFWHOF due to its location in the middle of musky country and those involved in the Modern Record programme are also musky people. The IGFA considers somewhere around 900 different species worldwide.....the don't have a "special" place for musky as those involved in this programme would. I believe it is a sincere effort to bring the musky WR into reality....someplace it hasn't been for a long, long time.
Brian | |
| | |
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Pete - I was in the audience and my first reaction was that this appeared a little covert. However upon reflection since MI is only endorsing and not taking any responsibility to be the record keeping agency, I don't believe a motion was required as a simple endorsement doesn't appear to effect any bylaws or procedure changes. If it did require a motion then you are correct, the motion would have to be submitted many weeks prior to the board meeting, giving RVP's and chapters some time to discuss the issue prior to the meeting. | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| Thank you guys for your responses. I hope I'm clear in stating that I'm not necessarily opposed to the formation of such an organization. I regard some of the people who are listed as board members to be personal friends and believe everyone has the sincerest intentions of the activity at heart. Frankly I'm sruprised Larry hasn't been on this board to respond or clarify some of these points. I've seen that he has been on the Musky Hunter board. I guess I will take your suggestion Steve and e-mail Larry directly even though I would like to see the responses on a public forum. Oh well, the only person I have to convince of the benefit of this new organization is me. | |
| | |
| Brian - - The reason the IGFA never certified the Spray fish was that it was shot when caught this was a legel way to land a fish at that time in Wisconsin, they had no problem with the weight of the fish just that it was shot. Marv. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Pete:
Sorry for not responding sooner. Been trying to keep up with several boards and watch the ball game. Figured Steve could handle most here, but my responsibility, so here goes;
You asked: "My understanding is that this proposal was brought up at the MI International spring meeting. Does this mean that Muskies Inc. will now be considered the official record keeping agency? If this is incorrect then I assume "the committee" will act as the record keeping agency with the support of Muskies Inc. Please clear this up."
Larry: Muskie's, Inc. International Board voted to "endorse and support the modern day muskie record program." Muskie's, Inc. will not be involved in record keeping.
You asked: "The group of people listed certainly represents some of the clearcut leaders in the activity and has representation from people with scientific/fisheries backgrounds. I have no problem with that. How will committee members be determined in the future? Is there a term of office or a protocol for selecting members of the committee?"
Larry: To date, committee members have been determined by invitation, including some after offering their services. There is no "term of office." There were some initial consideratons for committee members; they were high profile and respected members of the muskie community fishing industry or scientific community; they had the common interest of establishing verfiable and credible records; they wished to be involved; several were in strategic locations of record potential waters. All invites were not accepted, and not all have yet responded and some have yet to be tendered. There is currently no official protocol for the distant future, but it is on the list of protocol's to be worked on.
You asked: "How does the committee establish itself as the official record keeper in the context of the larger sportfishing community? Are other record keeping organizations (IGFA, FWFHOF, etc.) willing to accept records established by this committee?"
Larry: The larger sportfishing community is not our concern. Only muskellunge and its hybrid are within our purview. I cannot speak to the last part of your question, as I cannot speak for those organizations.
You stated and asked: "The ongoing debate between WRMA and FWFHOF has been well documented. Have efforts to change record status been also presented to IGFA? I only know of two record keeping organizations IGFA and FWFHOF so please excuse me if I am excluding others. Has the IGFA (or others) refused to examine the findings of WRMA? If the answer to this is no then I would question why such a procedure wasn't pursued to use an already existing organization as the record keeping entitiy for our area of the sport."
Larry: This program has absolutely nothing to do with the debate alluded to. If I understand the first question right, that would be a question for the WRMA. You are correct about the two record keeping organizations noted. There are no others (except states and provinces of course). Your WRMA question will have to be directed to them as I cannot answer it, but I believe that the WRMA has not yet tendered anything to the IGFA. I am not clear as to your meaning in your last statement.
You asked: "Do other fish specific organizations maintain their own records outside of organizations like IGFA? For example, are there records maintained by Trout Unlimited that differ from IGFA records?"
Larry: I believe BASS keeps some sort of bass records, but since I am not a member I cannot tell you for sure, and what all it entails. Since I follow only muskies, I cannot speak to what other species specific clubs around the world do.
You stated and asked: "If someone could help answer these questions it would help me to decide just how to feel about this. I agree that the time had come for the clouded records of the past to come under examination. I think we all would like a clearcut definition of what constitutes a world record. Are we now abandoning fish from the past that have had reasonable documentation? While I would like to think that this committee would provide a definitive path to record keeping I am concerned that it will only serve to further splinter what is already a small segment of the greater sportfishing community. The sportsman in general will have to decide wether the FWFHOF, IGFA, or Committee record is the real one. Regional favorites certainlty are a factor in this concern. This is somewhat remeniscent of having various boxing organizations determine who is "the champ". "
Larry: This program is not involved in examining the past records, but I'll assume you are referring to the work being done by the WRMA. We are not abandoning any fish from the past that have documentation sufficient to satisfy the rules and the committee. Application for record will be up to the anglers. As to your comment regarding "splintering," one need only to look closely at the committee list. I think you will find a few cases of "strange bed fellows!" We see this program as pulling the muskie community together, not forcing it apart. As for determining which organization an angler wishes to submit his or her fish, that choice will be a personal. In most cases, anglers submit their record catches to all record keeping organizations. As things currently stand, anything under 67 1/2 pounds down to 60 pounds is acceptable to only one current organization...this new one.
You end: "I'll refrain from expressing more views until I get a chance to chew on this a bit. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on my questions."
Larry: Pete, I hope these answers are what you were looking for (so far, will get to your follow-up next), and help your "chewing." You're welcome!
Pete continues: "OK, another question just occured to me. I believe that usually Muskies Inc. propoals are something that gets around to the RVP's and then the various chapters are "supposed" to find out from their repective memberships on how they would like the rep to vote. Am I wrong on this? Was this proposal already "out there" and had an opportunity to go through the general membership? I suspect not since I really didin't hear any chatter prior to this weekend. If I'm wrong about this then maybe somebody who is an officer of MI can comment about the procedure. Maybe it is just that I had been a member of a chapter who generally asked the membership at the meetings about how they wanted to vote on various issues prior to an International meeting. If this is actually the accepted procedure why was it not followed in this case?"
Larry: I believe this has already been answered, but this involved no change to MI by-laws.
Pete continues: "The formation of such a new organization is a serious step. How much time was allocated to this issue? Did everyone have a chance to look over the bylaws or whatever you call the document that has been posted to agree to the procedure for determining the world record? Seems to me you could have spent a whole weekend just going through the fine points of that document."
Larry: Again, its operaton did not and does not involve MI and it involved no by-law change for MI and MI is not getting into the record keeping business.
Pete said: "Here's the thing that bothers me about this. Just as the FWFHOF was criticized for doing things in "closed door sessions" is this not similar? If a new organization is to be accepted by not only the musky commiuntiy but the entire sportfishing world I think the matters of credibility should be compeletely above board. While I have stated that I'm generally in favor of examining and making determinations as to the validity of old records I'm just very concerned that this "appears" to be something that got hustled through based soley on the prominent names of the involved parties."
Larry: It appears that this is still in reference to MI, please correct me if I am wrong. As noted previously, MI has no connection to the operation of this program, they only agreed to endorse and support it, and the doors were open and guests were present. I believe this makes the latter part of your statement invalid.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Committee Chairman
| |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Marv....thanks I knew that was their reasoning, yet doesn't it seem strange they grandfathered in most of the records from the old Field and Stream programme. I believe it was a convenient way to get around having to qualify the Spray fish as it's photos just don't measure up.....in my opinion. As with the "retired" Lawton record they tend to move away from controversy. It will be interesting if the Johnson record is challenged (and IMHO I don't believe it measures up either) to see what their reponse is. I seem to remember a quote made when the Lawton record was "retired" from the IGFA that if a record had any measure of questionability they wouldn't certify it.....I believe that was in one of the comments from Larry Ramsells' article about the disqualification of the Lawton record. Currently, I am a member of the IGFA and would welcome their input into this issue. But, I believe they try to take a larger view of all fishing records, not just musky. It fascinates me that only 16 freshwater records, of hundreds, have not been broken since 1970. And of those only the musky has such a storied history of so many, falsified fish. Even if you question the walleye, smallmouth bass and largemouth....these are just single fish questions. The musky world seems to be rife with the largest fish of all time having been disqualified and questioned.
BTW Larry, Bassmaster does have a well publicized Top 25 bass of all time....which, of course, are nearly all California fish. I don't believe in Perry's fish either but it will be beaten sooner or later due to the giant, couch potato, trout fed bass of southern Cal. But that is not a discussion for this board.
Brian | |
| | |
| i think in order to disprove old records.....you people are unfortunalty GOING to cause a LOT of fish to be killed whether you realize it or not or want to own up to it/admit it.
Yes, back in 1995 when the internet was not what it was, people wouldnt know "what record is what".
NOW, in the information age, joe blow reads a misconstrued post on bass pro shop website forum and goes out looking for bertha.....blam, gets a "common" 40# fish (steve where are you fishing that these fish are so common by the way???) and Thumper cracks her thinking he has a record
people, realize this.
most of us will NEVER see a 60lb fish, let alone hold one. hell, i'd venture to say not ONE person on this site that posts has EVER held a TRUE 60lb fish.
the .001 % of us that will or might see that fish are not part of the 1% of the musky fishing population that could possibly estimate a fish to be 60lbs without a scale, i don't care WHAT your name is. that 1% being weightlifters and butchers that KNOW what 60lbs feels like, not someone that's caught a few or even several big muskies. and you can't say excitement estimation won't play a part in what i'm going to say next.
now factor into those percentages all the Joe Q. Publics that just read about the new certification process on BPS.com forums, etc. a "common" muskie or "very nice" fish to us, is a potential world record to John Q.
you can see where i'm going with this.
a LOT of dead, not even close to 60lb fish.
i think this whole thing is erratic, hasty and quite honestly, very egotistical by people i would least expect that from.
and to say the least, M.I. aligning themselves with this apparently powerful, almost political body within the fishing ranks that perpetuates and is promoting anti-catch and release.
it's ok cuz it's angler choice?? yeah, i guess it always has been, but it was still kinda taboo guys, and even though it was "his right"...is it really??
This is NOT perpetuating any kind of positive impact on our fisheries, no matter HOW u look at it...and anything that is not positive regarding these fish, is usually hurting our cause as CPR fisherman. not to mention, supporters of all the protocol involved in being serious about having better fisheries. i'm sour over this, but, that's my "choice" too.
George Ivanusic
Yeti
Edited by The Yeti 4/4/2006 1:54 AM
| |
| | |
| Not knowing the difference between a 40 to 50 to a 60lb fish is a bit crazy. Look at is this way...a 32 inch 8lb fish vs. a 42inch 18lb fish no problems there...huge difference. I have been lucky enough to catch a 40lb fish, and it was way different than the 30lb fish I caught and way dif. than the 35lb fish I have caught. If you have caught a 30lb fish, you would know whether the fish you just now caught is twice the size...the step in class of fish is sooo apparent, that to argue other wise you are saying you really have never encountered a fish that was over 30lbs....the person who makes the mistake is catching it on accident and is keeping it anyways...fairly simple...Ben | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | LarryR says: "It appears that this is still in reference to MI, please correct me if I am wrong. As noted previously, MI has no connection to the operation of this program, they only agreed to endorse and support it, and the doors were open and guests were present. I believe this makes the latter part of your statement invalid."
I would like folks to know that most voting (MI RVPs, ALD, & Past Presidents) at the MI meeting on this did NOT have a chance to review the rules put forth by Larry. They had the assurance from the ones that did - only. Most of those that did not see the document have most likely still have not see it until it hit the internet. I am wondering why Larry did not hand out copies of the rules at the begining of the day so folks could read it & ask questions that they may have and vote on something that they actually read, not being advised on. Larry was on the agenda, but the specifics rules were not. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yeti,
I'd still disagree. First, Ben said what I would here. Second, I said 40# fish are fairly common in the context of comparison to 60# fish, I caught one in that class three seasons back here in Rhinelander, one a couple ounces short back in the day, and a couple off the Goon that broke that mark. I broke 50# once, but have never come close to 60#, not even close. I think it's VERY rare a high 50# fish is caught. VERY rare. I know I'll have my cradle and scale with me from now on as I always have, but the scale will now go to 60#. It'll be accurate, and the fish will need to be well over the mark and I may STILL let her go. I doubt that it'll be me, and I doubt it'll be Yeti ( but you never know) who breaks that mark, but I hope it's eventually broken.
Is the idea to forever accept that it takes 67# to 70# to break the record when it's pretty clear that a 70# fish has never been legally caught and registered? With the Internet now what it is, wouldn't you admit MORE poeple know what a giant fish looks like, and conversely, what a fish that isn't such a giant looks like? Why is it the concern that a fish might be harvested is so strong at this level, yet people complain and argue over a 50" limit on a potential trophy lake? Don't mix up the CPR and Conservation ethic with the record keeping finction here and insist that they are not compatible, they most certainly are. If indeed you do catch that fish, you can take a picture and let her go. Most of your caliber will. Most who are not your caliber would keep the fish anyway.
I'll ask the question again, who here has caught a 60# fish? How about 55#? 54#? You get my drift. I think this will cause more folks to be careful, and make SURE the mark is broken. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of some of the elitists out there if I missed it by a couple ounces. And is it 'his right'? You had better believe it is, and I'll scratch and claw to see it remains that way. I don't have time to explain why here, but it has to do with the future of our sport, promotion of a strong and reality based conservation ethic, growth and participation, and much more.
I'll let Larry answer nut, but I do know the final draft of the rules was approved almost immediately before the MI meeting. More than anything else, it was time restraints and nothing more. | |
| | |
| Brian - - How can you say you dont belive in Perry's fish and then say it will be broken, in fact it was broken this last year and is in the process of being certified now . But that's not a discussion for this board. Anyway if you don't belive the photos of Spray's fish , the sworn statments, the weighing of the fish on a post office scale. The fish mount itself that was on display for years, than theres no one now that will change your mind so go ahead and come up with new ones, doesn't matter just make some up. Marv. | |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | BenR - 4/4/2006 3:29 AM
Not knowing the difference between a 40 to 50 to a 60lb fish is a bit crazy.
Well I have 2 buddies who I fish with who could easily mistake a 50 for a 60. Hell, one of them thinks every 30" pike is 15 lbs. In my opinion the benchmark should be 65lbs {O'Briens fish}. I think any fish killed for this under 65 lbs is a wasted fish. I think it's easily possible some occasional musky fisherman lucks into a 50 pounder and keeps it hoping it's a record. | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| Thanks for replying Larry. | |
| | |
| i'll concur with a lot of what you said steve, you have a way of making one see past the intitial reactions, which i admit, some of what i posted was an emotional response to.
but, i still say this opens the door to unwarranted fish kills if the recognized record is open for a knock at.
i'm sure you've weighted and looked at all angles Steve....you have a respectable history in this sport and your compadre's dossieux in the WRMA are respected names also.
but i think, as serious muskie anglers, our job still lies in the education and subversion of ignorance in our fellow "weekend, i catch whatever's biting" type fishing Joe.
i for one, probably will never see a 60lb fish, i hope, but god knows it's going to be that guy dragging a bass tube or some kid on a dock with a bobber and worm.
I wish you guys luck with this. maybe the internet is HURTING this one rather than helping it....kind of ironic in a whole if you look at it that way, especially when you consider that the internet has helped expedite some of these proceedings.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Are these "Rules" set in stone? I have a few issues.
First. "1) Rod: Rod used to catch a potential record muskellunge must comply with accepted angling and sporting ethics and customs. Rod used must not give the angler an unfair advantage and precludes the use of an “unconventional” rod of inadequate length, including rods broken during the fight if there is less than adequate rod length left to allow a fair advantage to the fish. Final decision of this matter will be at the sole discretion of the committee. Photograph of the rod used in capture must accompany the application. If the rod was broken during the fight, the length of the remaining part of the rod attached to the reel must be stated from the broken end of the rod to the centerline of the reel."
Your are trying to tell me that a short rod gives the angler an advantage? Please explain why we got rid of all our pool sticks, and now do not own rods less than 6'9", and most are 7'6" and longer! If a rod breaks during the fight, I would say it is definately no advantage to the angler. If it is, please explain.
Also, what if I get that 60+ while handlining? This is an acceptable, and ethical form of angling, and has been around for many, many years. Why must one use a rod?
Next Point. "Anyone other than you the angler touches any part of the equipment or line from the time a fish strikes or takes the bait or lure, or while the you the angler is fighting the fish until it is landed, except as allowed for landing assistance under “Angling and Catch Rules and Regulations.”
Should a line become obstructed with an item that will not pass through the rod guides, assistance may be rendered by holding only the obstacle and cutting or otherwise removing it without touching the line. This includes planner boards. Only the angler may touch the line during this process.
It is the “intent” of this rule to insure that no unfair advantage is gained by the angler during the duration of the time spent fighting the fish."
It is the accepted method to hold the line while removing a planer board. In fact, it is recommended that the person removing the board hold the line, and the angler reel down to the point of the hold, to reduce the possibility of slack.
Does this give the angler an advantage? Sure, but that's the point of avoiding slack in the line. That's why we no longer use pool cues for rods. Tha't why we use treble hooks, with barbs. You want to eliminate unfair angler advatage, take away barbed hooks. Let's see how that flies.
Edited by Shep 4/4/2006 11:23 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 462
Location: Syracuse, Indiana | <p>The International Board of Directors of Muskies, Inc. endorsed the Modern Day Muskie Record Program as presented by Larry Ramsell. The vote was an overwhelming 96% in favor. Absent some reason to question the decision of the MI board, MI's involvement is over (except the MI logo on my shirt showing in the picture of me standing beside MY catch!). :)</p><p>David Cates</p> | |
| | |
Location: Athens, Ohio | from the MI bulletin board, topic about Spring Board motions:
Motion # 12…. Motion . Muskies, Inc will endorse and support the Modern Day Muskie Record Program as was presented on 4-01-06 by Larry Ramsell. Passed For 48 Against 2.
The 'endorse' part I get, it is the 'support' part that got me. I'm glad the new Prez has spoken, and it's 'over'. Hope you do get one, Dave. m | |
| | |
| Yeti,
I just read this entire second page and have something for you to consider.
Your saying someone might mistake a 40lb for a 60lb and kill it because of the 60lb modern day mark .... AND this same person would not mistake a 40lb for a 70lb AND then return the 40lb to the water because he would know it was not a record at 70lb.
My guess would be if he couldn't tell a 40 from a 60 then he would not be able to tell a 40 from a 70 either.
Shep, I think some of the rules need to be adjusted too, let's give them some time to sort things out like SWorrall says. | |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | It doesn't really matter, Like a good friend of mine said:
"Pretty stupid to kill something just to brag about it.. I see no point in trying to keep records like that..."
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Mr. Cates,
I'm a MI. member and sit on the board for FRV chapter. While I like the idea of the new world record group I have to object to MI. endorsment of this for two reasons. First, this was not disscussed at all with membership. I saw nothing in the magazine, newsletter, and I don't remember any disscussions at last months board meeting. This was something that should have been tabled til the fall so everyone could have had a chance to look at the motion and form an opinion.
Secondly, and this to me is the more impotant of the two reasons. We have as an organization and musky anglers as a whole have for years spearheaded the catch and release movement. I am very proud of that. I think it sends out a very different messsage to the fishing masses to endorse an organization whose whole existence is based solely on killing huge fish. Please don't misunderstand me here I do think catching a world record would be great and honestly I peronally feel that everyone has the right to do what ever they want with their legal fish. But the manner in which this motion was pushed through without much disscussion on the local levels and MI.'s long standing policy on catch and release makes me feel a little uneasy.
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
| I heard the TC Chapter still has a weight division in their International Tournament. If this is true, the leadership of M.I. has little to criticize about killing Muskies for personal gain. | |
| | |
Posts: 1023
Location: Lafayette, IN | Wow, I actually read all of this thread! That should qualify for a WR since I find this historical dispute kind of boring. I'm just facinated by big fish. But, curiosity kept me reading anyway. I feel sorry for the poor mope that weighs a 59.75# fish hoping it's the new record in the new book. Eventually all the musky world will hear about it, argue about it and assign motives for why the fish was kept in the first place. Keep a legal monster if you choose. I'll be the first to post my congratulations. Hopefully it will smash the disputed WR's out there and we'll be done with all this. I'm still amazed by every 40 incher I see on this board. And speaking of this board (and the internet in general) - It surprised me how many people called my 47 incher a 30 pounder. We weighed it in a cradle and also ran her measurements through the different weight calculators. About 22 lbs tops. Don't figure on "busting my bubble" about her size either. She's a WR in my book!
 | |
| | |
| Hunter
the 2nd part of your post is mainly what i'm concerned about, but it encompasses a lot more too.
it's complicated, and probably going to be more unfortunate for some big fish than fortunate too.
it is an anglers right to keep a catch (by law at least), and that's something that should and needs to remain a sacred ordeal.
i've been almost complete catch and release fisherman for the last 16 years....save for a few mid sized smallies that my neighbor in need wants for dinner about once a year, and those days are few and far between cuz he's a proud man, and usually doesn't ask me to catch him dinner....which, i have no problem doing for the guy.
and, not that it matters, but....i can tell you without hesitation, if i thought i had a WR or a fish over 60"x28 or bigger, it would get videod, pictured and released.
and i would feel horrible if it was an unsuccessful release, just as most of you guys would.
maybe that way would be kind of an acceptable means to an end......an unsuccessful release on a monster fish that gets submitted and passes the said criteria. i wouldn't hope for it, but i'd hope for that b4 i'd hope for an intentional "60 pounder man, bonk her".
Also Steve, i know you're a pretty thorough guy when it comes to this stuff. what would a fish have to be close to age wise to be reaching this size, on average that is.....i know there aren't many benchmarks for this, but is there any way to tell, or even estimate?
I also find huge fish fascinating as someone else just stated.
Edited by The Yeti 4/4/2006 10:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Marv....enjoy having this discussion around everyone else. I've always said Perry was the smartest to get an improbable record certified. No photo (not required at the time) took it home and ate it....very few witnesses, etc.. Statistically speaking the odds of him catching a largemouth bass that was 30% larger than any other in the area.....and since in Georgia.....is just difficult to believe. The only bass recognized by Bassmaster Top 25 that are even close (aside from California fish) are two bass that were 20 and 19 lbs in Florida both over 60 years ago and the state of Florida does not recognize either as a record. The only other fish is a 19 lber. from Japan. Of the top 25, the other 22 are from Southern Cal...where I grew up and fished extensively for largemouth. Look how many fish bigger than anywhere else have been caught in Cal just to approach the record. The big bass recently released looked to be of world record size...I have no doubt the record will be broken down there. BUT it is an artificial, and unnatural enviornment for the Florida strain largemouth. It does prove if you stuff them in a confined area and force feed them rainbow trout they can get bigger than in their native distribution....but they are radically the exception. The Cal bass on a length to girth ratio and in a category completely different than anywhere else in the country. Will that diminish the record when it falls....not in my mind....like the Spray record it will be nice to see another fabricated record disappear (again, just my opinion). Tell me of any other existing record for any fish where not just the top fish but most of largest historically reported have been debunked as exaggerated?
Marv....if you truly can look at the Spray photo and believe....you are in a distinct minority. Why doesn't the Hall get a list eminent musky fishermen who will support and back the record? Because they just can't do it.......
Brian | |
| | |
| Brian - - As I said before if you look at all the facts about the Spray fish you can not prove it wrong . I have had the good fortune to have seen the 3 fish mounts that they displayed at the Milwaukee sport show in 1952 and many times after that in northern wisc. and I can tell you that the Spray fish was bigger then Cal Johnsons fish that is still on display in Hayward Wisc. Sprays 2nd world record 61-13 was somewhat smaller than Johnsons 67-8 LB, Fish which you can go look at any time you wish. Having a home on spider lake in the 1960's I got to see the Johnson fish all the time. I was in the navy in 1959 and when I was home on leave for Christmas I found out about the fire and the loss of those great fish it was a sad monent for me. You may think your having fun trashing some 50 yr old records but I don't. This is the last time I will post on this as I can see you have you own agenda. Marv. | |
| | |
| IL, IN, KY...they all have records that are achiveable at this point. However how many fish each year are kept that are thought to be a record, that fall short of the record? Not many, if this problem does not exsist on a state level where catching a 40lb fish is very possible, why would it be a problem on a 60lb fish, that is really unlikely to be caught. I really do not see how there is an issue here...It is all dramatics for the most part. | |
| | |
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Exactly Ben! This shouldn't be an issue at all. If I ever kept one it would most definitely exceed the 60 lb mark. Have I ever seen a 70lb. fish? NO. Have I ever seen a 60 lb. fish? NO. Have I ever seen a 50lb. fish? Maybe but probably not. Answer this...If a 60lb fish is caught and kept, how much longer does that fish have to live? From reports that I have read most of the record fish are about 30+ years old. I highly doubt that they would live more than 5 years after that point if they were released...and doubt even more that they would be caught again.
As far as the fish here in Indiana...I always promote catch and release! My comment to clients is that if you want to keep it...you have to swim to shore with it. AND if you think you are that good...you also have to dodge the lures that I will be throwing at you.lol We are fortunate enough to have a certified scale on Webster Lake. Yes, it can be used and has been used successfully. Jeff Kachmann caught a 51.5" beast, put it in his livewell, had it weighed, pictures taken, and put back into Webster Lake. The fish was around 37-38#.
I would also be one of the first to congratulate someone that caught and kept a fish over 60#. That is a very rare fish and the angler should without a doubt be willing to keep it and not be criticized about it. | |
| | |
| Chinwhiskers, you said: "I have had the good fortune to have seen the 3 fish mounts that they displayed at the Milwaukee sport show in 1952 and many times after that in northern wisc. and I can tell you that the Spray fish was bigger then Cal Johnsons fish that is still on display in Hayward Wisc"
First I'm amazed you can remember that it was 1952? But you need to know the Louie mounts were "doctored" to look bigger than they actually were when caught. This was 100% proven by the WRMA experts, sorry CW, you were just a fake out. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Several posts to respond to, a few not directed at me, but will share my information.
Vince, great post!
Yeti: I "have" held a muskie over 60 pounds...O'Briens. As for the age of a fish over 60 pounds, it can vary. Williamson's 61-4 was aged at 18 if memory is correct. It was a fish that was not spawning and put all its energy into growth. Conversely, O'Brien's 65 pounder was aged at 29 +/- 1.
Muskie! nut (Hunter4): The International Board of Muskie's, Inc. was not voting on the rules, and the vote to "endorse and support" this new program had no affect on current MI by-laws, and therefore no need to go to the chapters. Those present that had read the rules were in support and I suspect that the balance of the 96% that voted overwhelmingly to "endorse and support" placed their faith in them as well as the credible folks on the Reord Committee, which includes several members of the MI Intl. Board.
Shep: A rod too short becomes quite similar to handlining, which is not considered a "sporting manner" and not allowable either.
As for planner board removal, folks will have to adjust. I use planner boards, and while it may be more convient for the anglers partner to hold the line and remove the board, it is certainly not impossible for the angler to hold the line (tight) while the partner removes the board. Having said that, I will note your concern and ask that the committee revisit this rule.
I won't address barbed hooks, at this point that is a personal choice.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Larry,
First let me say thank you for your efforts you and others have put toward our great sport. While I applaud the formation of the new record commitee I just felt that MI international board should have tabled any official vote on this matter until people have a chance to see where this was going so they could make an educated judgement on wheather or not they wanted to support a third record keeping commitee. I'm not saying the commitee is good or bad but I sure would have liked the oppurtunity to form my own opinion. Again larry your time and efforts are greatly appreciated by many folks and myself included. I'm just not real clear on why MI. needed to move on this so quickly.
Dave | |
| | |
| I think the idea that this program would be responsible for killing a bunch of fish is ridiculous. It seems there hasn't even been a fish caught in the last 6 years that would even have qualified to be registered into this new system. I was at the Spring Board meeting for MI, and I had some questions about this program. I aksed Larry Ramsell about a couple things, and he gave me the answers I was loking for. I have total confidence in the people involved with this new program, as I've seen who they are, met some of them, and trust them.
We all have different opinions, and are all entitled to them. I do though, still believe in Majority Rule, and obviously the majority of the people in the room at the Spring Board meeting thought this was a good idea.
Brad Waldera, ALD. Muskies Inc. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please keep in mind this group is not in the business of proving/disproving the current historical records, that is up to the FHOF and IGFA to decide.
A 60# fish is pretty exceptional, a very rare thing indeed. If one decides to release that fish, so be it. If one decides to harvest it for ANY reason, so be it. This isn't an 'endorsement' of anything but a modern day record keeping organization. I must ask this, what IS the point of CPR if NO fish are EVER to be harvested, even a record? Where are we trying to go with this ideal, total forced CPR on ALL waters? How about just certain trophy waters? If that is what is best for the water, I understand why one might do that under a management plan for a time, but to legislate or demand TOTAL CPR based only on elitist emotion, IMHO is bad for the sport. Canadian waters at 54" allow for a true monster to be taken, but very very very few are kept because of the current CPR ethic. That ethic is a result of 25 years of education, not forced command. The idea is to protect a trophy based fishery, not eliminate selective harvest altogether. These are not 2 year old children, they are fish, and a renewable resource at that. Let them all go, that's fine, a personal decision. Harvest a trophy, that too is personal. Catch a new world record and let it go, again, personal. Keep it, that too is a personal decision. Be careful, gents, pushing an obviously elitist and exclusionist agenda, it costs us participation, growth in the sport, and the resulting portion of each DNR budget that actually goes to muskie management can be at risk as a result. Drive folks away from the sport and you DIMINISH education and conservationist ideals, which are NOT well accepted when 'forced'. I have given a variation of that statement to MI clubs across the country, and with a few exceptions in the crowd, I get applause, not jeers. Just my humble opinion. By the way, if I ever DO get a fish I feel is over 65#, you'll hear the thump in Atlanta. Or, maybe not, depends on how i feel that day. The point is that is my choice and I object to having that choice taken away based only on emotion, not biology, management, or for that matter, even sound trophy management in most cases. If the DNR decided to place a lake I like as CPR only as part of a management plan, no problem. The Goon was CPR only for years. I still fished there. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From antoher thread, a question from esox Maniac:
Wow- This definitely sets a new standard. Finding certified scales is probably not a major obstacle. But what about this one?
"1) Length: The fish must be measured “only” lying down upon a flat surface. Measurement shall be taken ALONG THE FLAT SURFACE, from the tip of the longest jaw to the farthest tip of either lobe of the tail, USING ONLY AN ACCURATE MEASURING DEVICE ACCEPTABLE FOR BUSINESS OR TRADE USE. "
Where the heck do we get one of these? I can't think of any place that has a certified calibrated measuring device that is ~ 60" to 70" long. Do I take it to the local Wal-Mart craft/sewing section and have it measured as if it were a bolt of linen?
At the local Home Depot & other hardware stores they use standard yard sticks and/or tape measures for trade & business use. Are these accepable?
What about the camera thing? How's digital any worse than 35mm?
Al
Al
-----
Al Warner
"All Water is Zalt Water"
http://www.zaltnad.com
| |
| | |
| There are other record keeping organizations, but in my opinion, this new one would be the most fail-safe. There are always going to be scenarios out there regarding the potential World Record Muskie. I talked to Larry about some of the issues, and he brought up one that had not crossed my mind. What if you're out on Lac Seul this summer and catch a 65lb fish? If I'm correct on this, there's no way that fish could be certified to be a record under ANY organization.
I feel this is the best program we've got right now, and I'm planning on supporting it all the way.
Brad Waldera, ALD. Muskies Inc. | |
| | |
Posts: 28
| I would imagine that any measuring tape would do.(Stanley,etc.) I think the digital camera thing is because of the ability to easily doctor photos by computer when a digital camera is used.If you use a regular 35 mm camera the original film can easily be checked to make sure the pictures aren't altered in any way. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Al's questions were answered by muskymike, but allow me to add the official word.
While lots of anglers today have the round, floating 60 inch measuring sticks, these are not acceptable for "official measurement." They are printed on plastic that is subject to shrinkage or expansion with heat or cold or stretching while merely being placed on the stick. My suggestion would to be to go the hardware store and get a six foot steel carpenter's rule if you are a serious trophy hunter. Being thin and flat, they can easily be placed out of the way in your boat. Flexible steel "good quality" tape measures such as used by professional carpenters too are acceptable. I would stay away from "cheap" flexible tape measures and wooden yard stick type measuing devices.
As for the camera/film; We realize that many folks today prefer digital cameras, but as mike so well put it, photo's from them are easily "photoshopped" on a computer. We have allowed for this in our rules, but I recommend that you get a "film" camera (throw away types will suffice just fine) to use, again, if you are a serious trophy hunter and wish to keep any credibility. Even some fairly inexpensive film cameras are waterproof or come in a waterproof case (I got one for around $35).
Hopefully this clears up those two items.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day Muskie Record committee | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Al's questions were answered by muskymike, but allow me to add the official word.
While lots of anglers today have the round, floating 60 inch measuring sticks, these are not acceptable for "official measurement." They are printed on plastic that is subject to shrinkage or expansion with heat or cold or stretching while merely being placed on the stick. My suggestion would to be to go the hardware store and get a six foot steel carpenter's rule if you are a serious trophy hunter. Being thin and flat, they can easily be placed out of the way in your boat. Flexible steel "good quality" tape measures such as used by professional carpenters too are acceptable. I would stay away from "cheap" flexible tape measures and wooden yard stick type measuing devices.
As for the camera/film; We realize that many folks today prefer digital cameras, but as mike so well put it, photo's from them are easily "photoshopped" on a computer. We have allowed for this in our rules, but I recommend that you get a "film" camera (throw away types will suffice just fine) to use, again, if you are a serious trophy hunter and wish to keep any credibility. Even some fairly inexpensive film cameras are waterproof or come in a waterproof case (I got one for around $35).
Hopefully this clears up those two items.
Brett and Brad, thank you for your kind and sage comments.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day Muskie Record committee | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Larry,
Gotta disagree with you on a rod too short is like handlining. It would be nothing like handlining. But please explain the advantage of a short or busted rod. Have we all made a mistake by retiring our 4 foot pool cues, for the longer, more limber rods of today? Doesn't graphite work to the anglers advantage over fiberglass? Isn't all our technology of today used for the very reason you want to disqualify short rods? Angler advantage?
And, in who's opinion is handlining not sporting. I'd be willing to bet there aren't 4 people on your board who have even actually handlined. With that lack of knowledge on it, how can anyone declare it nonsporting? I believe I'm probably the first to actually try it for muskies, and will expand on that further this year.
I just think this whole short rod, nobody can touch the line for any reason, is going a little overboard. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Shep:
It certainly is your right to disagree, and I shall look forward to your expansion regarding handlining later on. You will not however, be the first to try it...that was the method most often used in the 1800's!
To further elaborate on broken rod reasoning, reference to a past In-Fisherman show is in order. When a rod broke, another man in the boat grabbed the broken off part and helped the original angler fight and land the fish, which would disqualify it for record purpose under a different rule. I had a similar thing happen to a client. It was hilarious to watch, and we did get the fish, but it would still have disqualified it under all record keepers rules.
However, having said the above, I shall add your concern to the list I am compiling off of various message board of well meaning, well intentioned and well thoughtout concerns, and down the road a bit, the full committee will revisit those with merit. We may even reverse our position on handling "where legal." So please stay tuned. As a result of comments to date, I have already clarified the leader rule.
As for the "not sporting" aspect, that was my call and I may be wrong. Please keep me aprised of your "handlining experiment" this season. Perhaps I'll even want to try it (gotta check the regs first though).
Your comment: "I just think this whole short rod, nobody can touch the line for any reason, is going a little overboard" may have merit. The full committee will decide and let you know.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Chairman
Modern Day World Record Committee
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Larry,
That's all a person can ask for. Thanks for addressing not only my concerns, but the others as well.
I look forward to developing the handlining for muskies pattern. When I get it figured out, you'll be the first one I invite to share it. | |
| | |
| Larry:
If the angler provided your team the original file from their digital camera is there a way to verify that it is the original and not manipulated? If so, I have another idea for you to add to your list. I bet it will be very difficult if not impossible to read the numbers on a small contractor's tape measure in a picture where the entire 60"+ fish shows up in the picutre. I'm sure you don't want a photo with a closeup of the tail pinch at 61" where you can't see where the other end of the fish is in relationship to the end of the tape measure. If you had a digital image that same photo could be zoomed in tight enough to read the numbers on the tape measure. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lovin:
Good question that I'll have to defer to the experts. Thank you for your input.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
| |
| | |
| Right now Nikon is the only company who has a digital storage format that is accepted in court. The way I understand it is that each image is stored with a digital fingerprint if you will that allows the image to be restored to it's original state - even if someone modifys it. I'm drawing a blank on the name of their technology right now.
- John Weber | |
| | |
| Actually, I think it's Canon that has that technology. I frequent a Nikon website, and they knew nothing about it. | |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Larry- I guess I'm really confused by the level of detail applied to the length of the fish. The number 1 qualifier is the certified weight, i.e., that's the prime criteria for qualification as the world record. Why are the rules so stringent about the length measurement. A piece of string is acceptable for girth. Lastly the fish has to be examined by both a committee member & a biologist before and during any opening of the fish. It seems this step alone will rule out any hanky panky.
Al | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Have any of you checked out my idea about a WR/Trophy release database? Then one could catch a WR on C&R lakes too. Not only that, but it would encourage people to release large fish rather than kill them.
I think the entire idea of having to kill a fish to call it a record is a little old-fashioned. So, you have a dead fish? What good is that? Can't fish for it any more.  | |
| | |
| As bad as it sounds, I think the only way you'd be able to remove all doubt, would be to kill the fish. I just can't see how you'd be able to satisfy everyone with a photo and measurement. Most people don't have a certified scale with them on the water. I'm all for CPR, but there will always be doubt in someone's mind without the actual fish present to be seen in person, or without enough different people there to verify it. Hope someone gets a big one this year, regardless. | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | So, why should only the "World Record" count?
Its not like that with deer hunting. One can have a trophy recognized by B&C or Pope and Young even though it is far from world record size. Why not do the same for Muskie fishing? Why not recognize Muskies 54 or 55 inches and larger for the trophies they are?
I really don't think its that hard to prove a fish is as long as reported. It seems that a 35 mm picture with a measuring device alongside the fish should be enough.
The way it is with only one "record" and having to kill the fish, does WR keeping really affect anyone? What are the odds of any one person catching a +60 lb fish? What are the odds a person will ever even see a fish that big in a lifetime of Muskie fishing? But many of us fish on waters with large Muskies that reach the mid-50 inch range. Then a person would have a chance. 
I think a record-keeping body similar to Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young for C&R Muskies would help stir up interest in Trophy fishing. And by making it C&R, we would be encouraging people to release the big fish to keep the gene pool going and that may provide more large fish in the future.
I know its a new and different idea, but what do you all think?
| |
| | |
| I was a member of B.A.S.S. for many years, and they have a top 25 Bass of all time list. I've seen it quite a few times. One fish on the list was thought to be the World Record. They then found a two pound diving weight inside the fish's stomache. After the weight was removed, the fish still weighed enough to be in the top ten, and even with all the controversy, is still there.
I think the Modern Day Record Program is good, and will work. As far as killing fish is concerned, I personally asked Larry Ramsell about this, and he told me that the last fish landed that would have qualified for this new program was caught in 2000. It will not be "Killing a bunch of fish", as someone posted.
And regarding the Catch & Release World Record, I'm sure a photo of a fish alongside a measuring stick would more than satisfy a bunch of people. Others, it would not. Then you're back to all the "Controversy" again.
It seems to me, that you need to have a program that would satisfy the majority of skeptics, remove the most chances of falsification, and preserve the species as much as could be reasonably expected. In my opinion, the Modern Day World Record Organization comes the closest to doing that.
Good fishing everybody. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Had to read this all twice as I was not sure I had it right. I agree I don't think it will mean that many fish being killed. Remember it does not have to be a 60lber to be a record. Line class records could be much smaller. I also have said many times here that the musky is a renewable resource and the few that will be kept will do nothing but promote musky fishing. This type of publicity is all good.
I have 1 question, who would not keep a fish if you really thought it was a new world record?
I won't lie, I have no doubt I would and think most of you would.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| I killed the first big Muskie I caught. A 51 incher in 1976. I killed it because the 'experts' at the time said they top out a 52" and then went downhill. When I finally figured out that was a misconception (or outright lie) I decided I would not kill anymore. I have since caught & released 34 Muskies over 48 inches. At a 10% mortality rate that is 3.4 dead Muskies over 48". At a 20% mortality rate it comes to 6.8 dead Muskies over 48 inches. At the least I have killed about 5. At worst I have killed about 8 over 48 inches and the number less than 48' I will probably never know. I will mount any Muskie (regardless of size) that I can not revive. If I can not afford to mount these Muskies I will quit fishing. If I catch a WR class fish I will fork out the bucks for a replica and be happy. I wish you could too. | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | 2000? That is the last time anyone has caught a muskie big enough to even count towards the new record program? OK, so what is all the fuss about? We're talking about maybe one or two fish each decade? Why even bother? I mean, whats the point? It doesn't hardly affect anyone, does it? Good gosh, the odds of anyone who fishes even the best trophy waters ever seeing a 60 lber in their lifetime is so remote that its hardly worth a thought.
The question I ask again is why should just the world record count? Why not the top 25, 50 or even 100 largest Muskies? Why not recognize a massive fish, like something in the 55 inch range or larger for the trophy it is - just like with B&C? Why not extend the entire thing to include all really big fish? Why not? There would still be a world record of course......
I guess maybe Muskies, Inc is the only way to do this with their database. | |
| | |
| My thoughts exactly, Herb. What's the big deal? You should see the talk on the Muskies Inc. message board about this subject. People are threatening to quit, and resorting to name-calling. For what? Like you say, this isn't a program that would kill a lot of fish. I don't see why people are getting so upset about it.
As for MI doing the record keeping, I doubt that will happen. I think they plan on staying far from the record keeping business. They have a lot of info in their database, but that would only be for MI members fish. I think you'd like a program for all fish, right? It would probably take someone to start yet another program, and you'll need funding and time and so forth. Who knows, maybe it will happen?
Good fishing. | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Brad, Thanks for your input. I agree that Muskies, Inc would most likely want to stay far away from the record keeping business.
I would definitely like to make this avaliable to all fishermen including those who catch a big Muskie while fishing for something else. I'd like to keep the requirements simple too. Just enough to verify the length of the fish. Not going to worry about line type or if someone else touches the line or anything like that. If its a legally caught fish during open season and it is released, then it would qualify. For instance: If the fish was hooked by a seven year old girl while Bass fishing and her Dad needed to help her land it, then it should still count in the record book.
Edited by Herb_b 4/10/2006 9:40 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Chinwhiskers - 4/4/2006 8:13 AM
Brian - - How can you say you dont belive in Perry's fish and then say it will be broken, in fact it was broken this last year and is in the process of being certified now . But that's not a discussion for this board. Anyway if you don't belive the photos of Spray's fish , the sworn statments, the weighing of the fish on a post office scale. The fish mount itself that was on display for years, than theres no one now that will change your mind so go ahead and come up with new ones, doesn't matter just make some up. Marv.
I will quote you CW rather than quote the guy you refer to, since to make his argument he rejects a documented record size fish that has been proven many times to be concievable and possible where it was caught. It is hard to dismiss genetic capabilities to exceed a certain size, especially when the record is not even the maximum of the species recorded and PHOTOGRAPHED WITNESSED AND RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD. The Perry record is probably one of the furthest out, but most believable records on the books. California is just the proving ground for the genetics that are in the fish. To complain that those waters are an artificial environment is also a bunch of ##, they are not aquariums and these fish are not planted as adults and then hand fed, they are in essence wild fish which happen to be at the top of the food chain in the lakes they live in, lakes which have a great forage base and even more important, spectacular water quality.
I do not want another group climbing up and claiming records authority on musky. I think it is a bad thing in the process of happening. The IGFA is fine by me and there is no vested interest in that group. I would be in favor of that group continuing to keep the records, since I perceive them as basically non biased and having no specific iron in this fire. Any quick survey of the names on this committee makes the prejudicial aspect of this new record keeping group ring out loud and clear. Evidently this is their final answer to the FWFHOF's response to their initial attempt to eradicate the old record, and rather than settling for the Hall's judgement, which is what I understood they would do, they have decided to once again reject it, take their ball and start a new game on a different court. As has been pointed out, the hall really shouldn't be in the record keeping business anyway and I am not quite sure how that function was allotted to them. Don't want to allot that function to this group either. Would rather continue to have the records kept by impartial, non biased group. IMO there is...ahem...a tiny, but identifiable, slim tendril of jealousy, distrust and animosity in the group trying to establish themselves as the new record keeping society, and also IMO any record endorsed by this group will become suspect because of the very same qualities I just listed.
Lost in all these record disputes is the Malo fish, which probably more than any other is deserving of some kind of official recognition, but through the many manipulations of he says vs he says, that fish, freakish though it may be, has been ignored.
We can claim all kinds of things but the facts of the matter is that this is a fish that was a valid catch whose weight exceeds any of the record keeping groups theories on what the record musky really is.
Record fish are all freaks and I don't even suppose I have any knowledge of the size limit on freaks. They have all gone so far out of the norm, and the comparitive population is so limited and rare, we do not have a reference for these fish, or when and where they might exist. That is how it is.
I would suggest that this committee hammer out what might be the details of their recording process and then put a moratorium on any further action for a period of 5 years, if they still feel at that time they want to start into the future with 3 separate record keeping societies holding and claiming to be the "official" record keepers for the world record musky, then go ahead.
And then of course, I guess we can hope that some fish comes along and unifies the "belt".
Another thing to think about, once you create any kind of committe of beaurocratic organization, there are always meetings, and meetings always seem to need to generate some action(to justify the meeting of course)and how long before this committee decides that there should indeed be categories for different methods used to take musky? Even though that might not be on the horizon for current committee members, it makes me nervous to have that kind of potential crap on the horizon.
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/10/2006 6:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | "I will quote you CW rather than quote the guy you refer to, since to make his argument he rejects a documented record size fish that has been proven many times to be concievable and possible where it was caught. It is hard to dismiss genetic capabilities to exceed a certain size, especially when the record is not even the maximum of the species recorded and PHOTOGRAPHED WITNESSED AND RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD. The Perry record is probably one of the furthest out, but most believable records on the books. California is just the proving ground for the genetics that are in the fish. To complain that those waters are an artificial environment is also a bunch of ##, they are not aquariums and these fish are not planted as adults and then hand fed, they are in essence wild fish which happen to be at the top of the food chain in the lakes they live in, lakes which have a great forage base and even more important, spectacular water quality."
I'm wondering how Hartman, Lawton, et al, felt when their "documented record size fish" were dismissed and debunked......
FSF....you obviously have difficulty in actually reading what I wrote.....and I certainly have no "iron" in the pot for anything related to largemouth bass....by todays standards Perry's bass would hardly have a chance at recognition. Any understanding of population genetics for fish would have you understand that phenotypic expression of genotype is always dependent upon enviornmental conditions. Simply put....show me any documented evidence of a largemouth remotely the size of Perry's having been captured which is close to its weight in the southern states?????? Just because the genetic capactiy for size has been realized in southern california has absolutely NO relation to the basses size in its native enviornment.....the Perry fish could have existed, I don't know....statiscally the odds are astronomically against it. How come you can't seem to address the huge proportion difference between Florida's in the native range and in California? The length to girth ratios are totally different. WHY? Obviously because the enviornment is signifcantly different then their native range......the diet and forage base is completely different....this is not rocket science....but it is fish science. If you would like I can cite some in depth incidences of population genetics and their effect of fish size. Address the totally different length to girth ratios of SoCal bass with those in the south and then maybe you'll have a logical argument.
Okay....now that the fire has cooled. You're okay with two organizations recognizing different musky.....but three is too much? What is all this "jealousy" and "envy" crap you guys are always talking about? Musky purists can't be altruistically motivated to recognize the world record musky? All you guys all so petty? I don't think so....and this group seems to have the most interest in pursuing an honest record for the species despite all the furor. I really respect the IGFA but they have no particular love for musky and weeding out this mess.....we won't even address the FWHOF lack of honesty in approaching the subject. Again, only 6 world records still exist before Spray's 1949 fish.....three of these are trout with absolutely no argument from anyone....one is the perch (any perch naysayers out there?).....the other two are tiger musky (shock.....anyother strange musky quirk) and who else, but Mr. Perry's bass. Kind of astounding when you think about it....we always assume and read fishing was so much better "way back when".....guess statistics don't really bear that out. The range of the musky is greater today then it probably ever was historically......why haven't we approached the high 60's in weight??? You figure it out.....these guys are at least trying to do something up front about the fish they love. Me....honestly don't really care....I love lots of different fish....musky is just one.
Brian
PS: BTW where in blazes did you arrive at "spectacular water quality" in SoCal lake impoundments? I grew up there for 30 years and even back then we wouldn't eat bass out of most of those lakes.....no one would call it spectacular.....no one that lives there anyway. You want great water quality come up here to Alaska and we'll show you lots of it.....but I wouldn't chance it in Southern Cal.
Edited by DocEsox 4/11/2006 12:05 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Doc, only you could keep arguing points disproven by the current population of bass, and well recognized, recorded fish from that population, fish which have basically come from the same genetic base as the Perry fish. I will let you continue to claim that a 22 lb. and change fish could not exist when bigger fish have been clearly documented up to what now, 25 lbs.? We will let you demonstrate scientifically how all these fish do not exist. You can also make your case how fish not being edible demonstrates poor water quality(personally I never felt any bass over 2 lbs were culinary delights, but go ahead and connect those dots for us as to how taste denotes water quality!). Water quality that I am talking about would be alkalinity, purity, temperature and oxygenation, waters suitable for trout. FL waters tend to be heavy on the organics, oxygen challenged at times, shallow, heated in the summer. Forage bases are mixed and include both high quality and low quality forage in quantity. It only takes one fish exceeding the norm by 10-15% to make a startling new record, but as I stated, records are freaks. You keep trying to bolster your arguments by deviation from the norm, but any examination of record fish usually shows a large deviation from the norm, and in many cases so large it is difficult to fathom. The Perry fish certainly had abundant forage and only has to be deviant within the population perhaps for growth, or appetite or maybe it had a sterility issue, don't know, don't worry about it either. When the fish have been shown to be capable of growing to greater than the record size(and the recent fish was in the face of fairly sophisticated and heavy fishing pressure)in lakes today, without genetic enhancement, it becomes pretty clear that the material is there to build a fish that large. Your girth to length argument has no bearing on the existence of one fish either. I fished in the south for many years, and fished one lake where I caught Largemouth that were 27-28 inches in length and yet never got one that weighed 9 lbs. Those fish faced awful water quality periods through the summers, and clearly could not have expressed their total genetic capability simply due to environmental factors. Perry's fish was in a fairly complicated ecosystem and probably had an environment where genetic capability could be expressed. Go ahead though and keep making the argument that a 22 lb something fish did not exist when fish that size, and significantly larger fish are currently being caught. Frankly if a guy shows me a 25 lb largemouth, and then someone else tries to tell me a 22lb + fish couldn't have existed, hey I don't think his argument is going to hold much water. As you say it is not rocket science.
If you will reread my post you will see that I note that there is some question as to how the FWFHOF got into the record keeping business in the first place and that I am not disagreeing with those folks that point it out. The IGFA holding "no love" for musky, imo, is a good thing. You and others can continue to make claims about honesty of the hall if you want, but that is just a bunch of talk too. Your claim about records existing before 1949 is one that has no bearing, or logical connection to much of anything. Much as you want to tote the significance, many lakes were not fished hard, and many fisherman were not fishing for records in the early 1900s. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. People did not worry about that large fish they caught, they ate the sucker and enjoyed it. Even up to 25 years ago there were still many records that could have and probably have been by now, broken by a fairly modest concerted effort to do it. Big deal. The record thing goes much more to the history of fishing, its perception and its pursuit, than it does to the vagaries of fish growth.
It will be interesting if this group prevails and becomes active, and then someone with somewhat of a shady rep or somebody disliked by most of the members then comes up with a record fish. Wonder how easy it will be to get that one on the books? With the IGFA, the good thing is that they are not connected to the sport in an emotional way. There is a lot to be said for impartiality when things are being judged. | |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | To "guest" that was misinformed about the TC Tournament:
http://www.twincitiesmuskiesinc.org/tournyrules.php | |
| | |
| So is there a weight division or not? I read the whole thing and it only says rules about the release division? | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | FSF...you sound like Detloff's broken record bantering backing the Spray record. Your first statement about the California fish coming from the same genetic base as Perry's may or may not be true....I don't know where the first Florida's were obtained for California....but I assumed it was Florida. But genetic possibility has DONE NOTHING to increase sizes in the south where fish records have stayed essentially the same for decades. But the new enviornment in Cal suits the genetics better as far as maximum size....but this means nothing in their home range....this is a very basic concept to population genetics. It isn't really credible for me to discuss the bass issue with you as any effort to understand your lack of knowledge, of population genetics and enviornments effect on genetics and expression aren't even acknowledged in your reply.....and who didn't say ignorance wasn't bliss? Second your reading comprehension seems to be low as I never stated Perry's fish couldn't have existed....statistically it is just unlikely. How come you seem unable to understand the simple fish science involved here....what is the largest fish in Georgia....ever...outside the Perry fish, of course. Closest I could find was less than 18 pounds...which puts Perrys' fish at 25% greater than that weight....better redo your thinking on the 10-15% issue. Records are rarely "freaks" and generally have scores of fish leading up to the record.....UNLIKE Perry's fish. Heck even the old musky fakers understood that principle as they crept the record up year by year....no one made a quantum leap like Perry. Where are all the intermediate fish anywhere in the Southern states? They still don't exist....yet in SoCal there are 20 to 30 fish leading up to what eventually will be a new world record. There isn't any "quantum" leap here but a gradual progression of size increase due to forced feeding with trout. Does the SoCal enviornment agree with Florida bass....obviously better than their native enviornment.
FSF....just answer this one question.....where is the increase in size or any intermediate fish which would show the probability of Perry's record? Please elucidate this for me. Not only before but since it's capture? The native enviornment obviously does not allow for the maximum expression of "size" capable by the genetic makeup....FURTHER proving the unlikeness of Perry's record. What somehow there was a microcosm of enviormental suitability on Montgomery Lake just around that one bass for several years leading up to its capture in '32??? If conditions were optimal then, just as in California, there would be mutlipe large bass near the record size. Your arguments about clarity, pH, etc.. only further prove the unlikeness of Perry's fish as those conditions DO NOT EXIST, by your own admission, in their native enviornment...about as simple as it can get.
What are you worried for anyway FSF.....soon Perry's record will be no more and in a few years his name wil be just an afterthought. And ironically, the largemouth bass record will never return to its native range. Interesting read last night on a Bassmaster site....seems one of the guys associated with Bassmaster recently purchased a bunch of historical papers he found on eBay from the lure manufacturing of Perry's lure (Creek Chub???). He was fascinated to find correspondence in there between Perry and the company. Perry wrote them apologizing for the "not good" picture of the WR bass he sent them but saying he had another much clearer picture of it and would they like a copy to use for advertising in return for some lures. The company readily agreed....yet we have no evidence of any photo now......I just found it an interesting read.....they are authenticating the papers now but no one even suggests they aren't authentic from what I read.
Brian
Edited by DocEsox 4/11/2006 11:13 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Doc Esox, You seem unable to grasp the idea that a record fish deviates from the norm and that is why it is a record. There is absolutely no rule in place that says records are incrementally broken. In fact there is no reason they should be incrementally broken in a mature stable population. You could just as well encounter the megabass in fish #1 as in fish #107, sheer chance. You know as well as anyone on this forum, or any scientist, that there is no logical reason to expect a record to be incrementally broken UNLESS it is a growing pioneer population which would age each year, and each year increase the probability of a larger fish than existed before. That is the only reason you would expect incremental increases in a record. Chance predicts that it will take more casts to find the one fish that weighs 10 lbs, than the 5 fish that weigh 8 lbs, but there is no reason that the 10 lb. fish could not be caught on the very first cast in the mature population. There is also no reason that the genetic improbability resulting in one large freak fish would neccessarily result in several large fish. If you consider large fish to be freaks to start with, what would one freak have to do with another? 20 lb fish in Fl is only a couple and some pounds and a state line from a Georgia fish of similar or larger proportion. The 20 lb fish in FL is just an indicator and does not neccessarily predict the maximum size attainable. The record bass, as I said was caught in a complex ecosystem. I made no comment that it was a stressful environment. I think I stated it was the type of environment that could maximize the size and comfort of a large fish. My comments about FL ecosystems were indeed about most of the shallow water FL ecosystems. I am also curious as to what is the rate of alligator predation on extremely large bass?
As for my "bantering", "lack of knowledge", "ignorance" and my "low reading comprehension", gee, those are the kind of smoke screen statements used when a person doesn't really have a good argument to go forward with, attempt to insult and degrade the other participant. C'mon.
And this really has nothing to do with muskys, nor with the record keeping committee newly formed.
It is, I suppose, part of your tangential proof of your claim that the record could not be what it is purported to be, but ...there is always the Malo fish that flies in the face of that particular claim of yours also. A fish that you have conveniently left out of the continuing discussion. Just as Malo's fish is a freak, Perry's fish may have been a freak, but it is interesting that he would pick a weight so far advanced over the current record of the day for what you claim was a probable bogus claim, or at least unbelievable to a gifted scientific mind like your own.
Isn't it odd that he would pick a weight like that, and then years later it becomes evident that indeed, LM bass can and do grow to and beyond those sizes? Very odd coincidence if your version of the fish were to be true. Don't believe it was a fake myself though, and wonder how many fish were trapped, speared, netted and/or just caught and butchered, that were in the high weight range for the species but just unremarkable during the times?
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/11/2006 10:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gentlemen,
It doesn't matter what the old records might be, at least not to this organization. Future records of the day will start in the realm of reality, and go from there. Let's keep things civil, or I'll have to get you both in the boat at one time ( I bet you'd actually get along, similar sennse of humor here) and ruin a perfectly good weekend for you both not catching fish on Pelican Lake. | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | What a party pooper, Steve. FSF...we've really blown it....Steve has taken us off the main board and relegated us to one of the "other" boards in hopes that our circular discussion will dissipate.
No reason to keep going in circles. I did take some extensive college work in population genetics.....your argument isn't valid on more than a few points BUT in the interest of not be "cast out" to the deleted post category by the all seeing powers that be on MuskieFirst....this will be my last post on the subject......unless..........naw...
Brian | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| DocEsox - 4/11/2006 9:39 PM
What a party pooper, Steve. FSF...we've really blown it....Steve has taken us off the main board and relegated us to one of the "other" boards in hopes that our circular discussion will dissipate.
No reason to keep going in circles. I did take some extensive college work in population genetics.....your argument isn't valid on more than a few points BUT in the interest of not be "cast out" to the deleted post category by the all seeing powers that be on MuskieFirst....this will be my last post on the subject......unless..........naw...
Brian
Well, see how similar our backgrounds are? Since you recognize that validity of my argument on a few points and I only made a few points, I will certainly take that as a gracious concession. I too studied genetics in college, specifically Holstein genetics, and also did some extensive fieldwork with the male excrements of the breed, and I sure recognize what you are bringing to the table here Doc.
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/11/2006 10:26 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Touche
| |
| | |
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | George Washington Perry was just another poor farmboy cheating in a fishing contest during the Depression.
I have photographic evidence that he CHEATED in a later Field & Stream Fishing Contest. Yep...had everybody fooled for decades...Montgomery lake was a Mudhole...It's a bluegill hole today...ever see the photo of Perry's Bass? Reminds me of Louie's 1st record...some OTHER GUY is holding a big 27-29 inch bass with a 25-26 girth (reported 32.5Lx28.5G)...huge, but a few inches and at least 4 pounds too small...IF that was really Perry's fish....IF...nice 17-18 pounder...
As far as muskies go...56.75 pounds(No stomach contents) and 58.5 inches is the end. a 60 incher has NEVER been caught. 60lbs. will be tough to get...may take a few decades...or lifetimes...but not impossible...
Scott Hayes.
| |
| |
|
Muskellunge Record Keeping Enters a New Era