|
|
Location: 31 |
There were a couple of questions raised by other people that got me thinking and I didn't want to take one ounce of slime (I really liked that one BTW) away from the congratulatory thread so I started this separate thread to open the discussion. Let me make myself perfectly clear here... I'm glad Tom kept the fish, and I believe in his catch 100%.
1) "I would say that is a relatively young fish, as it has a rather small head compared to it's huge body"
2) "The weight calculator figures the fish to go 51.94 pounds. Pretty darn close I'd say. BUT, according to Rick Lax, the fish had a completely empty belly. HMMMMMMMM"
I'll contribute my humble opinions first:
1) The head is not small, the body is just disproportional to the average size head for a fish of this length- a very common misconception.
2) Assuming the girth was measured dead this would certainly have decreased from the live girth, this discussion is for the upcoming natural comparisons to other released fish.
I would be Very interested in an expert like Rick Lax comments too...
| |
| |

Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | stomach empty...full of eggs? | |
| |

Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | 1)Why don't we ask if they are going to age the fish rather than specilating about it? I think I remember that Lax was participating with the celithrum (sp?) project, maybe he still is?
2) Not sure what you are getting at about this. So the girth square times lenght divided by 800 is pretty close. What the point? It has been done up that way and had proven to be close. What more do you want? What more needs to be said?
| |
| |

Posts: 32926
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jerry,
The fish's stomach was empty, so it could have weighed as much a 3 pounds more with some food in there; even more. The girth wouldn't have changed allot unless the Muskie had eaten a BUNCH of stuff or had a couple bigger fish in it's stomach. Heck of a fish, either way. I can't remember looking at pictures in one place at the same time from the same year of two 50# class fish with girths like that, not even historically. The best muskie angling ever available might just be right now!
| |
| |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Edit: From the start of this post, I assumed the original 50 pound thread had gone on a downward spiral, so I was trying to back up the fish. I read over all the new posts now and it looks like things are still on the up and up. I was just worried the discussion would turn into what the old world record threads used to be. So, insert foot in mouth. carry on. Oh yeah, it deserves it again: Can you believe how FAT that fish is!?!?
curleytail
Edited by curleytail 12/1/2006 1:35 PM
| |
| |
Posts: 354
| It is what it is. A great fish indeed. One, 8.5 pound, meal from a Wi. 60lber. Great story, great fish. | |
| |

Posts: 8828
| Kind of refreshing that nobody is bashing the guy or the fish or questioning the size!
I'll admit to wishing he released it, I can even say I would have released it. From where I'm sitting anyway. But staring at it in the net after a lifetime of trying to get the big one? Who knows
I think what you were getting at with the weight question was "how much would it weigh if it just ate?"
The average size prey is what, 35% of their length?
35% of 53" is 18.55". Depending on the type of prey, I'd say 5 pounds heavier, maybe? (unless it ate 2 or three
) | |
| |

Posts: 5874
| I never said the head was small. I said relatively small compared to the huge body. And I did ask Rick if he was able to get the age of the fish. No reply as yet.
And I agree with Steve Worrall. The best days of muskie angling are right now. This fish, and that sow from Steve Jonesi's boat are proof. | |
| |

Posts: 8828
| I like to believe the best is yet to come!! | |
| |

Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Shep - 12/1/2006 2:45 PM
I never said the head was small. I said relatively small compared to the huge body. And I did ask Rick if he was able to get the age of the fish. No reply as yet.
And I agree with Steve Worrall. The best days of muskie angling are right now. This fish, and that sow from Steve Jonesi's boat are proof.
To be honest, the Jonesi fish looks bigger to me. How big was that fish? | |
| |
Posts: 2378
| Gander Mt Guide - 12/1/2006 2:54 PM
Shep - 12/1/2006 2:45 PM
I never said the head was small. I said relatively small compared to the huge body. And I did ask Rick if he was able to get the age of the fish. No reply as yet.
And I agree with Steve Worrall. The best days of muskie angling are right now. This fish, and that sow from Steve Jonesi's boat are proof.
To be honest, the Jonesi fish looks bigger to me. How big was that fish?
54*28, weighed at 52-53 pounds on an uncertified scale | |
| |
| "And I agree with Steve Worrall. The best days of muskie angling are right now"
There were a 1/2 dozen confirmed 50 lb class fish released in MN this fall | |
| |

Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | BALDY - 12/1/2006 2:57 PM
Gander Mt Guide - 12/1/2006 2:54 PM
Shep - 12/1/2006 2:45 PM
I never said the head was small. I said relatively small compared to the huge body. And I did ask Rick if he was able to get the age of the fish. No reply as yet.
And I agree with Steve Worrall. The best days of muskie angling are right now. This fish, and that sow from Steve Jonesi's boat are proof.
To be honest, the Jonesi fish looks bigger to me. How big was that fish?
54*28, weighed at 52-53 pounds on an uncertified scale
So they're close.......maybe it's just the pics, but Jonesi's fish looks way fatter than 28". #*^@ pictures. | |
| |
Posts: 2378
| Gander Mt Guide - 12/1/2006 3:01 PM
BALDY - 12/1/2006 2:57 PM
Gander Mt Guide - 12/1/2006 2:54 PM
Shep - 12/1/2006 2:45 PM
I never said the head was small. I said relatively small compared to the huge body. And I did ask Rick if he was able to get the age of the fish. No reply as yet.
And I agree with Steve Worrall. The best days of muskie angling are right now. This fish, and that sow from Steve Jonesi's boat are proof.
To be honest, the Jonesi fish looks bigger to me. How big was that fish?
54*28, weighed at 52-53 pounds on an uncertified scale
So they're close.......maybe it's just the pics, but Jonesi's fish looks way fatter than 28". #*^@ pictures.
Jody's fish does look a little fatter, but pictures can definitely fool | |
| |
| My question is ....
Alot of posts are saying that they will learn alot from this fish. What and how will they learn from it beyond the obvious length / girth / actual weight.
Is it possible to have a skin mount and still donate the info/meat etc. to the DNR or like type agency?
| |
| |

Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I am hoping that they get a sample of the DNA to Dr. Sloss and have it included in the study he is doing on WI genetics. Or is this WI fish not big enough, I am not sure....OK, enough poking....
Cory | |
| |

Posts: 956
Location: Home of the 2016 World Series Champion Cubs | Just to clarify (musky nut) my 1st post. I'm casting no doubts whatsoever. I just found it interresting that the "formula" was proven to be pretty close to the real deal. Interresting to me because "this" fish is quite an oddball with few or no predecessors of similar specs to confirm/substantiate the accuracy of said formula. Many 45"x 20" ers have been caught to verify the accuracy of the formula as it applies to that class of fish. 53" x 28" is quite frankly in another galaxy as far as I'm concerned. Another interresteing aspect is this, the formula shows the true weight of the fish which does NOT include a belly full of ciscoes, shad, walleye, whatever. How many fish, or % of fish, that were used in the study on which was the formula was based were actually disected and to be found with an empty stomach.
On a different note I think the fish's massive girth detracts from the fishes percieved length. Again I believe the specs as reported but to me it doesnt look like 53 because its so darn fat. What an awsome fish. I certainly hope Lax gets/keeps a mold of that fish because I'll be sure to release my 53x28 when I boat one next year. Note I said when not if. Knowing that Tom has paved the way through Lax for me it would be a no brainer..........okay I'd have to probably think about it a little. (No catch & release digs intended here. Hold your comments please)
Here's another question. Will Lax get-r-done for the first musky show of the season? I'm sure the folks at Musky Hunter would be glad to show her off for him during this off season while the fatty is fresh on the minds of all of us muskie addicts.
No ill will or doubts from me for sure. Just a little envy of a guy who's Chirstmas came a few weeks early.
Karloutdoors | |
| |
| It has been mentioned a couple of times....here was a little bit I wrote on AML website.
As I was riding to my local coffee shopt this morning, to grab some Jo and a paper, something came to me. I started looking the number of muskies being caught by individuals in Muskies Inc. Back in the late 80's, it only took 85-100 fish per year to be International Masters Release Champ. These days, the International Masters Champ, ends the year with as many as 220-300 muskies. The size has grown as well. In 1988 we had a true 65 lber. from Canada, and less than 6 years ago, we had a 61 lb. 13 ounce fish....a true, certified HAWG from Georgian Bay!! In 1985 Steve Albers caught a "certified" hawg from Eagle....57 lbs. These fish are being considered the true hawgs of this sport. The true world records!! On August 29th, 1992, I lost what looked to be a 62-64" fish....(maybe it was only 56-58", but it was HUGE!) Last year, close friend, and muskie fisherman, Kevin Wegner, lost what looked to be 57-58"...and HEAVY, from the West Arm. The West Arm fish are truly FAT!! It could have been a verifiable 50 lber....maybe even bigger!
I look back on my records. I have kept very good records for years....I keep track of number of fish, versus number of hours per fish, and length of fish, on my favorite pond, EAGE LAKE!! HOO RAH!! So, if I have 3 guys casting, for 10 hours, that equals 30 hours of fishing for that day. I add these up for the year, and divide by the number of muskies...I then get an hourly rate per catch. Does this make sense? Anyway, the number of muskies, and numbers of hours fished for these beasts has doubled in number, and halved in hours/fish.(used to be one fish every 69 hours fished...three guys, fishing for a little more than 3 days), now it is almost one fish per 18 hours fished. Am I four times better than I used to be? I don't think so! Yes, there has been a learning curve, and I may have gotten better, but not 4 TIMES better. Then I look at size of fish...the length per fish has gone up over 3 inches as well....coincidence? I don't think so!
I then look at big fish coming from Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Georgian Bay, St. Lawrence, Ottawa River, etc. We, as a muskie community, are catching some VERY large fish....look at the pictures on this board ALONE!! I think we are in the good ol' days RIGHT NOW!!!
Sorry for ramblin'!!
This is what I wrote BEFORE the fish were pictured on the front page of this board. Do you believe we are in the good ol' days NOW?? I really do think so....maybe I'm wrong, but I think the best fishing EVER is going on right now...like Worrall said.
Sincerely,
Donnie  | |
| |
Location: 31 | I find giant muskie happenings like this incredibly fascinating, to me it's what our great sport is really all about... I also think there have been more legitimate 50lb muskies caught this year (and the last few years) IN THE STATES than in any time in history. All indications are this monumental trend will continue confirming our believe that catch and release, stocking programs and resource management are not only putting numbers of fish in our systems, but truly giant fish as well. Perhaps the even better old days are just around the corner... this could be cataclysmic!
Shep, I thought I copied and pasted your quote from the other thread word for word, except to correct the spelling... "I would say that is a relatively young fish, as it has a rather samll head compared to it's huge body!"
FYI, my eyes tell me it has a "relatively" small head too... but my brain is telling me not to trust my eyes.
I'm not trying to start anything here at all, really. I actually know people who are doing serious research in this area and the information might prove to be helpful to them. I've also seen people automatically consider a fish with a tremendous girth like this to be small headed. I'm speculating the head is pretty normal for a 53" but the 28 inch girth fools the eyes perspective... after all, most 52-54" we see pictures of have just an average girth and we get somewhat conditioned.
This question of the small head or not is something that could better be answered by Rick Lax because he has the expertise, the fish itself, and plenty of replicas of similar length to be able to make an accurate assessment.
Moving on to the live versus dead girth measurement deal. This is also something that very much intrigues me because most of the time the formula is being applied to a (hopefully live) release. I would like to somehow determine if Tom's fabulous muskie is coming so close to the formula because the 28" girth is the dead girth.
If Tom's original 30" measurement is fairly accurate, this would mean that the girth naturally shrunk as the fish died, which makes perfect sense to me. This is slightly complicated, but if the live girth of this fish was 29-30" the weight formula would of course reflect a heavier fish... and a perceived heavier fish. My primary interest here is to determine if the girth does indeed shrink, and if so, how much shrinkage can be expected on a 30" girth... and how this affects the formula. To me the fact that it had nothing in its stomach is just another piece of a puzzle that I do not know the answer to.
If I were to catch a legitimate 55lb muskie in Minnesota next year (the state record is 54) I would give serious thought to keeping it and it would be nice to somehow have a set of numbers that you could be supremely confident with before deciding. I'm beginning to ramble here too... at the end of the day it's still cool how Tom caught his fish completely on his own terms. | |
| |

Location: The Yahara Chain | Jerry Newman - 12/2/2006 8:42 AM
If I were to catch a legitimate 55lb muskie in Minnesota next year (the state record is 54) I would give serious thought to keeping it and it would be nice to somehow have a set of numbers that you could be supremely confident with before deciding. I'm beginning to ramble here too... at the end of the day it's still cool how Tom caught his fish completely on his own terms.
Jerry I think that anybody that is fishing in the trophy Minnesota waters and would want to keep a fish if it was the state record should have a certified scale in their boat. The formulas are just an estimate and it would be a shame to see a fish that fell a little short get harvested or a true record released. What type of scale did Jonesi use? I heard it was bouncing between 52 and 54 lbs, it could have been the record if it wasn't a top notch scale. Lee Tauchen could have very well have released the state record this fall. Where is Fenner when you need him? (I never thought that I would say that) I know that Dave has a certified scale on board and weighs his big fish, anybody that wants to really know if they have a state record should do the same. Dave if you are lurking out there, please chime in.
To the guys that are talking about which fish is fatter(Jonesi's or Gelb's) I think you are splitting hairs...the Gelb fish looks fatter to me when you look at the picture of Tom hugging it...They both are slobs but isn't Tom's girth a shade bigger?? | |
| |
Location: 31 | Troy, I should actually have said something like "if I was decided whether or not to keep it and before I hung the fish on a scale..." because I do carry an accurate scale in the boat, and that would be my sequence of events. Of course, having to decide whether or not to keep it would be a wonderful problem to have eh'. The fact remains that most do not carry a scale and it's entirely possible that an angler would use the formula to decide. BTW, I'm of the opinion that most would be predisposed if the fish was anywhere near 50lb though.
However, this was not my primary focus here... specifically, what do you (or anyone) think the girth of Jonesi's or Lee's giants would have been had they been killed? Less? More? The same?
I do agree that Tom's fish appears to have a larger girth and hopefully everyone involved understands this is quite normal to want to make comparisons... and nothing derogatory is meant. I could easily understand someone thinking that I'm trying to diminish or reduce the size of the giant live releases based on Tom's postmortem girth measurement.
I can assure you this is not the case and I do not want this thread to regress that point either please, without question they are all true Leviathan's that the vast majority of us will never see in our lifetimes. | |
| |
Posts: 519
Location: Bloomington, IL | This is great stuff, and what a great site MusieFIRST is!
I agree with Donnie and Worrall. Some unbelievable large fish have been caught in the last couple of years, especially this year. I netted Chad Cain's 55" beast last year and couldn't believe my eyes. Still can't. (Biggest fish I've personally ever seen.) My son still doesn't realize what he witnessed that day. This year, I can't believe the monster fish that continue to pop on the message boards, the # of 50lb. class fish sure seem to be increasing.
One other giant fish to note on top of the fish Donnie noted, is the Davison muskie from Nipissing on 10/6 this year. 58" x ???. The girth is unknown, would sure seem 30+", who knows. I continue to look at this fish in amazement. Bottom line, it was ridiculously fat, and in my mind, no question a 60lb. class fish. I also saw a picture of another 58" fish, that was said to be 58" x 29". I don't know who caught it or when/where it was caught this year, but huge nonetheless, very well proprtioned, and likely an upper 50lb. class fish. Prove positive Catch and Release works!!!
I don't remember when I registered for this site, hasn't been that long, but I find myself on this site daily now, often several times a day. Can't wait until Spring! Until then, may DA BEARS rule on the gridiron and continue thumping the Packers and Vikings!
Seeing the picture of Tom's fish on it's side reminds me of the mount of the Malo muskie in Dun Roven's Lodge in the Chip. Congratulations Tom!
Brad Nuppenau | |
| |
Location: 31 | I just had a friend call me who talked to Rick Lax today and he said Tom's beast has a 13 3/4" head length, which would actually be quite large for a 53" muskellunge. I also thought a visual aid would help to dispel the myth of muskies with an abnormally large girth having a smallish head so I put something together you may find interesting.
I also have some more information on whether or not the girth decreases postmortem, which is my primary focus here. Considering Tom's an old salt when it comes to handling big fish.... and he originally measured the girth at 30" (even though "it was sliding around") we'll assume he managed to get within an inch of perfect.
So let's start with a 29" live girth for the sake of argument- even though this is not confirmed. There is also a Polaroid picture that says 28 1/2", that I assume was measured at the bait shop or somewhere prior to Lax's taxidermy. Rick also told my friend today he measured the girth at 28"... a full 1" less than the 29" and 2" less than the measured 30" girth... it's indisputable that there is a half-inch decrease from the Polaroid picture. Either way the postmortem girth appears to have decreased considerably using the numbers provided, however I would really really like to get these numbers as accurate as possible to start a database with.
Also, if you look at the visual aid you will see how sunken the midsection is, while in similar pictures I have of it lying on its side directly after it was captured it has a slight (and natural) outward bulge. I'm sure most of you understand where I'm going with this now and any further information would be greatly appreciated. I would very much like to talk to Tom because this information has the potential to be very important down the road if placed in the correct hands, which I intend to eventually do. I would also like to talk to a biologist, or anyone else who might have similar pertinent information on any other before and after large girth muskies as well. [email protected]
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/3/2006 10:24 PM
Attachments ----------------
fat tub a lard.jpg (43KB - 185 downloads)
| |
| |

Posts: 5874
| I did say rather small compared to the body. I meant relatively small. Sorry about that.
The point was to ask Rick if he was sending in the bone to get an age estimate. As I mentioned, I thought maybe this superfish was relatively young, and perhaps not at the end of it's natural life? | |
| |
| She's at the end of her natural life now  | |
| |
Posts: 2089
| Girth from pictures can be decieving in my opinion. It's more than belly, it's the SIDES. The fish Jody Dahms caught was round, from the top of the back to the belly. No straight sides, round , all the way around. I love reading the discussion, but I think judging girth from pics is difficult, as is measuring the girth of a 54" slob in the net , all the while rolling in 3+' waves. Better to do it in the net than on the board for the sake of the fish. The most docile fish I think I've ever handled. Thank God! Steve | |
| |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Just catching up after returning from a 2 week late fall muskie trip. Wanted to add a bit to where I think Mr. Newman was heading.
The commonly accepted "standard formula" for determining fish weight (G x G x L divided by 800) has been around for about three-quarters of a century...it was "built" from DEAD fish, and as such should NOT be used without modification for determining the weight of LIVE muskies!
In the 1980's, Warren Wilkinson, past president of Muskies Canada did considerable work on this after several large Georgian Bay muskies were kept after the standard formula was applied to fish just caught and the angler's thought they had a 40 fish (their goal to keep one), only to find out an hour later that it came up short when the fish was put on a scale...what he learned was that the LIVE girth measurement taken in the boat was an inch smaller on the dead fish an hour later. From that came an "adjusted formula" by doing the same math as the standard formula, but reducing the girth by one inch. It has saved many muskies, and is and has been found to be far more accurate of the "actual" weight of the LIVE fish.
Let us all be aware that "formula's" are merely an ESTIMATE and many things contribute to ACTUAL weight. Mr. Gelb's magnificent fish obviously lost girth after capture AND it was empty (50 pound and up fish may need an even larger girth reduction for calculating LIVE weight).
It is great to "speculate" that many 50 pound and over muskies are being caught now, but unless they are scale weighed, we will NEVER know for sure, and an inaccurate girth measurement in the "heat of the moment" on a live fish while excited can also contribute unfairly (knowingly or otherwise-not pointing fingers here) to OVERSTATEMENT of weight, as the girth measurement is the most important number in the calculation. I agree with many here that NOW is the best time in history to catch a muskie over 50 pounds (and indeed 60), but let us not lessen the value of the true giants that are properly weighed.
If you are a serious trophy hunter, pass on a couple of "sure fire" lures this winter and purchase a 100# Chatillion scale and send it to IGFA for certification. You can then weigh your monster before release (in the net would be best for the fish and the net weight can be deducted), and then you will KNOW how much it weighs. You can then make an informed decision on whether or not you want to keep the fish rather than needlessly kill it only to find out later that it wasn't as big as you thought or had hoped or wanted!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com | |
| |

Posts: 32926
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
Any luck on the trip?
Thanks for the information, that is exactly what Jerry was trying to get to, I think. | |
| |

Posts: 8828
| What is a chantillion scale?
How big is it?
How does it work?
How much does it cost?
| |
| |
| http://www.chatillon.accurate-scale.com/ | |
| |

Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | One thing can be said for sure, these huge fish being caught are 50 pound “class” fish and that’s as accurate as we can estimate them. Larry said it best, the LXGXG formula is an estimate, the only way to know for sure is to weigh the fish.
The other thing is pictures can be deceiving. Hold a fish one way and it looks average, take another picture at a different angle and it looks monsterous. If we are going to promote releasing these fish we have to learn to deal with the uncertainty, and be happy about it. Last night at Lee Tauchen’s seminar in Madison he showed a picture of a very large fish, but it didn’t really look that fat, then he showed a picture of the same fish laying on the bump board and it looked ginormous. To me it proved the point how we need to be careful when we put pictures under the microscope on the internet.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve:
We had a bit of luck, but didn't get the "one" we were looking for! Tough wind and water clairty conditions, but that is part of the game...Larry | |
|
|