|
|
| I have a cabin on Mille Lacs and see many huge fish. Many 50 inch plus caught. Some kept. I often wonder what the potential is of the fish caught and kept.
Are we searching for a world record that has never been caught or we hoping that someone let 'er go in that 45- 55 lb range. Like Jodi Dahms (SP) fish.
I often dream of that 60 inch open water warrior that could test the scales. I just want to know if she has battle wounds and hook marks or is she smarter than us and eludes the masses throwing plugs up here?
What are your thoughts? |
|
| |
|
| I think those monster fish exist, because I have seen some over the years. 4 in particular spanning over 30 years, the most recent last September in the US and another last October in Canada. I know others that have seen monster fish like me, and that is what keeps them going back to those areas for the rest of their lives.
I question whether one of these true super tankers will ever actually be hooked though because the real monsters are typically places we never fish. I think they stay deep around pods of baitfish in most big water systems most of the year, and you might see them shallow spawning in Spring or just might happen to catch them in transition in late Fall trolling, deep cranking, jigging, or soaking a sucker.  |
|
| |
|
| crook
me and the D were just talking about this tonite..i completely agree.....deep, never showing up, and honestly, probably never seen a bait. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What are they doing out there, hiding? Smart fishes...  |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Steve C., I'm having trouble understanding how you think record fish are out there hiding or whatever and yet you've seen 4 record class fish? I'm assuming they followed your bait? That makes no sense to me because it's either one or the other, not both, right?
For the record I have never seen a muskie remotely approaching 60lb, let alone 70lb in 30 years... the last 10 or so exclusively fishing some of the best water in the world. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | If you truly want a world record, you should be fishing on the St Lawerence. Out of all of the Canadian waters it has the greatest chance according to Dr. Casselman's work. I would love to see Casselman do some analyzing on Mille Lacs. If people are keeping fish out of there they should get the clethirum (sp?) bone to him. He doesn't need a very big sample, I believe he told me six large specimen's, to develop a potential size limit for a given body of water. It would be very interesting to see what Mille Lacs upper size potential is, it could be greater than even the trophy Canadian waters. It is truly amazing how many huge fish are coming out of Mille Lacs.
I don't hear as much talk about Tauchen's huge fish as I do about the fish Jonesi's client caught, but Lee caught a 55.5 x 27 this fall. It was also a barred fish as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Can someone contact Lee for a picture? Sounds like a new front cover to me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 786
Location: Minnesota | I realize deer are a different subject but, size increase is the same if you "let them go". I have seen studies with whitetails that if you do not harvest 2-3 yr old bucks your entire strain of large antler producing bucks wil get much much larger. It comes down to harvesting deer to optimize for potential food also which does not matter IMO with muskies but similar effects would be seen. Many deer in Iowa have been watched for years and look a the records being broke over the last 10 years due to smart hunting. Again, I know this is potatoes vs apples but I think the muskie community would see similar results. Not to mention, BIG fish give birth to fish that WILL get big themselves. Seen some good studies looking at the growth rate and average size of pike in lakes too. I will see if I can dig that up and post the pdf.
James
PS-My goal someday is to own a 20-50 acre lake and product some wolrd record bass and crappie. Maybe if that day comes I will throw in a muskie and feed her some trout
Edited by Grunt Lures 12/2/2006 10:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As with deer, what Muskies have to eat, water quality/environment quality, and much more effects growth and ultimate size potential. Mortality rates are considerable with NO fishing, up to 30% of any year class every single year.
Whitetails are, of course, a different subject, but there are certain factors that connect. Here in Rhinelander, we have absolutely no mast crops or farm crops near my land. In the area I hunt, the deer are browsers. Minerals in the soil are not good, so without supplementing, our deer at 6.5 years score OK, but no where near what they could in central Illinois. I've shot some big boys here, P&Y, sure, but B&C are rare. We began a mineral supplement program a long time ago, which has helped. Muskies are limited by similar factors;forage and water quality and chemistry, etc.
Pond grown fish might get big, and might not. One can take the same fish and grow her large in one pond, while siblings do not get as large in others. That's a study in itself!
My two cents:
Want a record fish? Look to the waters that have everything the Muskie needs plus a lower angler mortality rate. Large waters tend to offer both for obvious reasons. Mille Lacs' largest enemy in producing a world record might just be us. Then again.... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Troy, I agree... the St. Lawrence is the number one place and head east there a couple times of year in search of something like Tom & Co. just caught. The problem for me is the distance and amount of time it takes to learn that water on your own, how I would love to live a little closer. What's your thinking on what Lee's muskies girth would have been if killed?
I also think there's a lot to be said for what might happen in Green Bay if the fishery is allowed to develop... same with Mille lacs and other areas and agree what Steve hints at with us being our own worst enemy for giants. It's a very exciting time for muskies in the United States proper now.
Oh, you guys might find it interesting I also fish a system that has very high mortality due mainly to spearing with precious little muskie angling pressure and of course a known history of producing 50lb muskies. My thinking is that, firstly they are there because you cannot catch them where they are not. Secondly, the density population keeps the angling pressure low which is a big plus. Third, it also allows the few remaining fish to feed with no competition for the abundance of high-protein food available.
Early on I just slammed big fish and looked like a genius... lately... a donkey could've done as a good and I sometimes catch myself questioning why keep going back there because it's a lengthy drive from my house to catch nothing. I know the answer why and have even seen results, it's just brutal to fish at times... but once in awhile... Bam! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 561
Location: Monee, Illinois | The world record will be caught on a Zebco 202 snoopy poll baited with a wax worm....
Classic |
|
| |
|
| Jerry, in response to your question I have seen 4 60 inch class muskies in my lifetime, two shallow showing no interest early season and the other two follows casting late season. I don't estimate weight until I see the girth of the fish or actually girth it. Some monster upper 50 inch fish with upper 20 inch girths have been caught and either released or kept this year. I have been told about sighted muskies in Canada that were easily over 60 inches long. These sightings are rare, and these fish likely will never be caught.
Super size muskies are out there, but we won't know if a 70 pound musky really exists until one is caught and verified. Do I believe it can happen? Most certainly yes. Do I think it will happen? Most likely no. I just lost a fish that left a 9 inch jaw mark on sucker two weeks ago in Vilas County. Right now I am here in Canada during the December full moon period. Your best chance at a big heavy fish are big heavy fish waters. It's all about genetics, forage, and habitat!
I believe in Big Bertha, just don't know if she will ever be caught.
Steve
Edited by muskyboy 12/2/2006 3:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | fish a lot and some great water ... last year i saw a 50 pounder for the first time with Cal and Bette on Eagle and it was shocking for me ... catching would have been great, but standing on the deck after she disappeared was enough of an experience to never forget it. this after seeing probably 16 4' plus fish that day and Bette catching 2. the 50 lb. i think is THE rarity and then it's a matter of timing to push the scales to the mid 50's ... maybe there's a freak out there but it's sure fun to live them through the stories of the guys fortunate enough to catch them this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | I have seen 2 mid 50 pound fish in the last 2 years.You need to fish big water.oh..and put in a lot of time.They are out there and you will see a 55-65 pounder in the next year or two.Just my thoughts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| I think a 60 pounder from minnesota is right around the corner. Could happen at any time from canadian waters. I've seen 1 fish that had a real shot at 60 inches , At least 56 inches, could have been bigger , it was just way way larger and longer than anything I've seen before in over 15 years of fishing in Canada. I've seen quite a few big fish in this time , this fish was in that special category , not related to 48-50 inchers. But you need big girth for that 60 pounder. I think it will happen soon , but getting actual weights on these superfish is tough , most guys are releasing them. MD |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | This is an interesting thread, but in my mind until a 70lb is caught, kept and verified it flat doesn't exist because one has never been captured by any method - ever... and precious few 60lb. As an angler this is sometimes hard for me to accept because the 70lb number is so ingrained in our culture, it's what I've dreamed of catching from day 1. My heart is in the right place, and I would love to see one caught... but by my brain tells me to believe otherwise. Oh, and so much for the naysayers who claim they would not keep a record because of the grief involved, the reception of Tom's fish certainly paints a different picture.
This lean statistic also holds true for the 60" or 30" benchmark, precious few of those anomalies have been truly verified. I do not want this thread to regress to arguing about records, so I will mention something more recent. We've all seen a shift from exaggerating the length to exaggerating the girth lately, one particular fish that was claimed to have a 30" girth comes to mind for me. It's splashed all over and being used to promote a business... and there is no way the thing was even close. Our willingness to allow (and even help promote) exaggerations like this really bothers me... why, heck I don't know? I guess I just flat hate the bull because it takes away from truly magnificent creatures like Tom Gelb's.
I'm apprehensive to share my own catch details because that's not my thing, it is however pertinent to the conversation and perhaps allows anyone interested a better peek of my mindset.
The longest fish in my boat is 56", with every 1" increment of measure captured beneath it with a nice stack of 50-51" and several 52's. The 56 was the longest fish I think I've ever personally seen alive, not by a long shot obviously but close enough. A couple of years ago I had a fish on that got off that I guessed mid-50" with an impressive girth (after I calmed down) and it just dwarfed a 49 1/2" we released about an hour before. As a matter of fact it actually looked twice as big as the 49 in the water... made it look puny... but I knew better. So for me it's certainly easy to understand how someone would mistake a mid-50 for a 60, or even a low 50 for an upper 50. I think MD's response is very sincere and honestly falls under this category, I could almost feel the excitement in the boat with you there too:)
The largest girth in my boat is 25 1/4", and I'm confident I've seen a fish or two with a larger girth than the 25", but not by much... that is certainly a tough bell for me to ring because it's difficult to get a perspective on the girth in the water. However, about 10 years ago in bright sun this one particular fish followed up... saw the boat... turned sideways... took a poop and boogied. This tub was barely 50" and was not even in the same league as the one mentioned above, which I'm confident was in the 45 to 50lb class, but certainly no heavier than Tom Gelb's fish
I found it so refreshing that Tom said: "I knew it was a 35- or 40-pounder, but when I finally got it netted and saw its side, I knew I had something special," because this has been my experience as well. Until you get a hold of it and have the experience to properly identify the size based on other fish you've handled... it's a real tough thing. I think you could double that with the excitement of a big fish follow or one getting off. Who knows... maybe I'm all wet with my guesses on those fish above?
So Steve, I hope you better understand my frame of reference for questioning you listing "4 in particular spanning over 30 years" under this world record class topic. FYI, I'm still scratching my head here to Steve because if you're seeing these fish with regularity, they can certainly be caught. I don't understand why you would say you feel they can't be hooked? I'm rambling here- hope you guys enjoyed the fish stories.
. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | Jerry I agree with you 100% You dont know what you have till its in the net.I thought my 51.5 was 48-49".but the next day I did see a fish I believe was a super tanker 56-58" easy.I thought my dads 53.5" was maybe 50.My dad wasent gonna get the net for my fish he said it was only maybe 40" well that measured 47.There seams to be a perspective change in the water.(Bigger in the water).70 pounder is a fish that might not be out there.I have more confidence in seeing a low 60 pound fish.But that could change with the new waters being stocked.Could also come from a very low density lake not know for ski's but have a few roaming.This 70 pound fish brings out alot of good thoughts and ideas.Pretty interesting to read. |
|
| |
|
| I agree with Jerry that the girth thing is getting out of hand...in the last year or 2 the exaggerated girths being thrown around out there are simply laughable.... as for 60" fish swimming around....well I have to go back to the "superfish" thread...when a guy like Marc Thorpe chimes in and says he's never seen a true 60"er I have to seriously doubt those who claim to have seen more than a few ...If they are out there, they would be caught..they have to eat..they are not some sort of super musky with the intelligence of an elephant..it's a musky...things do look bigger in the water...I have not personally seen anything over maybe 54". I can just imagine what a 56 incher with a big girth would look like...I'd probably not even wager to guess how big...It would take an angler like Marc who has probably as many 54+ in his boat as anyone to say they saw a 60"er for me to believe it...sorry for being doubtful of you Muskyboy...but that is my opinion, a little buck fever perhaps?...IF they were out there they would be caught...now I'm not saying there aren't a few super freaks swimming around but not in the numbers some would lead us to believe...my 2 cents...go back to that Superfish thread for some interesting reading by guys who are true authorities on big fish....
I do think a near 60 lber will be caught in the near future...It won't be 60 inches though... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 155
| There were alot of fish posted this week Tom Gelb,s fish was truely awsome.But someone posted a 58x29 on muskystriker.com from the St.Lawrence.Both very nice.But are there bigger? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I believe the longest on record was a 66 incher from Lac suel. It was under 50 lbs. Ken obriens 65 was verified. The supertankers are there and they are catchable and someone will eventully put her in the boat. I know of one man who has done it twice but has released her both times. You all know his name so I wont say it on a public forum. The Larry, Georgian Bay, The Ottawa and now I believe Green bay or Lake Michigan could put a 70 lber on the wall. Here is a picture of a great lakes spotted fish caught by my wife in 2004. It was 47 inches long and weighed between 25 and 28 lbs. It had been dog boned by a freakin monster that ripped its flesh back on both sides of the body. The side facing my wife was torn all the way to the belly from huge teeth. The range of width of the bite was between 9 to 11 inches . This was a upper 20 pounder that was thrashed and severely damaged by another huge Musky. They exist and its just a matter of time before one blows the Spray fish off the map. Kingfisher
(47 inch spotted bitten.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 47 inch spotted bitten.jpg (20KB - 164 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Also the Lake Nippissing fish was true hog. oh yes shes out there Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Here is the pic of the 58X29 from the larry.....2 inches shy of 60 inches....kinda puts it into perspective doesn't it.
Cory
Attachments
----------------
58X29.jpg (174KB - 189 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | Holy smokes, that's cool!!
RM |
|
| |
|
| I think that was kept as well right? someone said 57 lbs? wow. that is HUGE ...could you imagine that thing following in your bucktail...i'd die...
|
|
| |
|
| It weighed 49 pounds
Match it against the length and girth see if it matches up |
|
| |
|
| Jerry, think positive. She is out there. We will catch her. She will blow Spray's lie of a record away. She will blow all our minds away when she shows herself to the world--be a believer man! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 155
| Thanx C.Painter fer the photo.Now that I look at the pic it looks like a row troller too...Hmmmm... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Guest,
Where did you come up with 49lbs? I only ask because that fish was kept.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Watch this video. It will help you see what the possibilities really are!
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_wmv.asp?clip=479
I have seen a 60# fish. Had it hit me right after I caught my Personal Best, so I had a good basis of comparison; Keith saw it too, actually. I don't think I have ever seen one larger. |
|
| |
|
| It was kept and weighed and it came in at 49 pounds after freezing
I know all the speak about weight loss,but little documention exists about weight loss,so figuring it was frozen that night,it may have not lost all that much weight
Here's a little excersise for all
Weigh a glass of water,freeze it and weigh it agin,tell me the difference in weight loss?
Considering most living matter is composed of 97% fluids
For de-hydration to have an impact,flesh needs to dry(de-humify),freezing does de-hydrate flesh enough
Maybe someone can point me in another direction with my thinking?
Nonetheless some great big fish caught in recent years all over
BN,I think 60 incher's exist but I know of only a few credible people I believe released such fish,and they did not weigh as much as some pertain to see
Only 2 muskies ever caught that were 60 pounds(none were 60 inches),all these guys see em,maybe but I see muskies as a cold blooded species which vary in weight according to years,seasons,ability to feed peacefully and be non pressured and certain fledging fisheries which fsh are eating actively till the pressures overwhelmes the population and they become lure and boat shy and cease adequate feeding
The true Queen in my perspective lies between 56 58 inches but all the elements must be right and colide and that means someone being at the right place and right time
When I see a fish and we miss it,normaly within 5 days I catch it
Are their fish that do not eat lures or shy from the boat because of bad experiences,I suspect so,mainly cause I graph em,but who knows if they have not been previously captured?
Hope is all you have
As the the old saying goes
Put hope in one hand and shiite in the other and see which fills first
Like I said in the super fish thread,they all look big in the water,till you tape em |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| I know where there are two world record fish living. ONce caught they will beat the spray fish by 4-6 pounds. I will be chasing her next season. |
|
| |
|
Location: Minnesota | Where?
figured it was worth a shot |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| I believe there are 70lb muskies out there.
Sooner or later someone will catch one.
I don't believe it will ever be a regular occurrence, and here's why
1. Incidence of fish reaching that size is very rare
2. Those that do reach that size feed on prey we can't possible mimic with lures (and still be able to fish with them)
3. The largest fish in a lake ecosystem aren't eating where we're fishing
My prediction:
70 pound fish will be caught one of three ways:
1. Vertical Jigging
2. Live bait
3. DEEP trolling
|
|
| |
|
| With no other muskies over 65 pounds, what is your frame of reference Esoxaddict? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Guest
We have verified 65 pound fish, right?
Arguing that the biggest musky that has ever lived has already been caught and that there can't be a bigger one seems awfully presumptuous.
The recent introduction of muskies to so many lakes and rivers combined with all the C&R education, increased size limits, genetic research, and the combined efforts of the clubs and DNR to build quality fisheries, it is only a matter of time.
We're putting more and more muskies in more places, and the fish people are catching are getting better every year.
The record fish were caught during a time where we knew very little about them, and there was no catch and release -- you caught it, you ate it.
The techniques and equipment we're using to find and catch them is constantly improving, and musky fishing is growing like never before.
It's only a matter of time.
Look what has happened with bass fishing in the last 20 years, and the size of some of the fish being caught out West. There was a time when if you showed someone a picture of some of those fish and told them how big it was they'd have called you a liar, because it was completely unheard of, it was "impossible"...
Edited by esoxaddict 12/4/2006 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| The Bass refference makes sense. The part about arguing that because there is one that was 65 means there has to be one 70 (and it will be caught too) seems awfully presumptuous to me. When you add to the mix that Mr 65 may have had some water added to it and the next one on list is only 61, then I question if a 70 could exist. Just an opinion.
|
|
| |
|
| Havn't the LL only been stocked in Mil lacs for around 16 years? Does this means the LL have not even reached there full potential yet? I think it does.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Think about what it would have to be to get to 70 lbs...
58"x31.25"
59"x31"
60"x30.75"
In my opinion most the guys who say they've seen fish that would go 60" really didn't see one quite that big, but I'd be willing to bet at least a few of them were legitimate 60" fish.
Musky fishing is getting better every year. Look at the fish caught this year alone. You don't think a 70lb fish is possible on Vermillion, or Eagle, Sabaskong Bay, Georgian Bay, Green Bay? Look at that Nippising fish -- there's your 58" right there. It stands to reason that there are quite a number of fish out there that are an inch and a meal away from 70 pounds.
Obviously they still need to be caught to be the record, but more and more people are taking up musky fishing all of the time, and between the books, the videos, GPS mapping, electronics, and the internet it's taking them a lot less time to get from zero to 50 and beyond...
I'd be willing to bet that within 7 years we will be seeing pictures of a 70 pound fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I'm with EA on this just because no one has seen or caught a verified 70# does not mean it does not exsist. The pond behind my house has tons of bass in the 2-4# range and a few in the 5-6# range for years i thought that this would be the max size for the pond but this summer I got one that went 8#, so now I wonder are there bigger fish in there ? perhaps but I will never know for sure until I or Someone else gets it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Jeff,
I understand where your coming from and yes there are some true giants that are being caught. However, the very points you raise about the advantages to the information age we currently live in are the same reasons I feel that a fish of the magnatude your talking about is a long, long way from being produced let alone caught.
The huge amounts of information, and the dialoge on websites like this one does a couple of things. One it makes fisherman more savvy to what is going on out there on the water. Which is a good thing don't get me wrong. But better fisherman means more fish caught and more fish dying. Accidental death or poor handling of a big fish, or simply legal harvesting of a legal musky. Now remember I'm not talking about your weekend 45" which is a great fish but your 40 to 45 pound hogs. Secondly, and I feel most importantly is the effect that education and dialoge that is taking place today can and does create huge pressure on specific lakes. Take Vermillion for instance that water gets hammered all season long these fish ( the true giants) are being pressured by fishing, recreational boat traffic, and loss of habitat for spawning. Throw in spearing and accidental ice fisherman catchs and you have a great strain on this fishery and many others like it.
Not saying that big fish truly big fish don't exisit out there. But look at Tom Gelbs fish and just how fricken fat she is. Now add nearly twenty pounds on her and you have your 70 pounder. With the information age comes both the good and the bad. Especially on those waters that are pumping out some huge fish. I think its going to be a long time before anyone even gets close to 70 pounds if not for any other reason than they just can't get to that size.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2067
| IMO 70Lbs...will never happen. a true 60lb fish is almost non existant -I don't think we will ever see a 70# fish. With the pressure and knowledge todays muskie anglers I think we would see 60lb fish every year if there is 70# fish out there.
I have only held a two 35-40lb fish... hard to imagine one twice that size. |
|
| |
|
| 60 inch fish have been caught and released in recent years
A 60 pound fish may have been released on Nippising this year
Big fish are out there
70 pound Big Bertha may be out there but never be seen or caught
(Jim_Hutchings_60_X_29_MH2-450x328.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Jim_Hutchings_60_X_29_MH2-450x328.jpg (32KB - 209 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| what do we KNOW about nature?
what do we THINK we know about nature?
who knows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Steve w. I think gelbs fish would make a nice new new cover pic. As far as big fish go I have seen two I would say are considered tankers. One I lost on chataqua lake about 4 years ago. A very very big fish!!!!! The other on North Twin about 12 years ago,this baby was a super tanker!!!!!!!!
I get to spend a fair amount of time on the water and I know they are out in the that high 50 inch range. I agree that a 70 is something I doubt I'll ever get to witness. When I saw a pic of lees,the cover fish and gelbs fish I am in considerable deep envy. Truely fish of a lifetime.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| 62-64X34-36. No BS. The fish has been eating beavers for 40 years I think. Just you all wait.
There is probably a 100 pounder swimming in Superior. Could it be the next frontier. The fish I am talking about is not from the Great Lakes however. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Don,
Toms fish IS on the cover, has been since the minute we got the picture. |
|
| |
|
| Steve C: to say a 70 pounder exists and then say we may never see it sounds like the same thing people who promote bigfoot might say. Commonsense guy: when you say the fish will beat the record by 5 pounds you are in effect saying you can guess the weigth better than Tom Gelb .... a 100 pound musky when only 2-60 pound have ever been hung on a scale is just plain sillyness.
I would like to see a 70 pounder too, but there would have to be more legit 60's caught first, it's the only thing that makes any sense. I've not seen a picture of a 60 pounder since 2000, except maybe the Dempsy Fox River fish which was not weighed, if you want to continue to claim you saw a "record class fish" go a head and add your name to a long long list. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| As I stated before
We're growing begger fish than EVER before. I don't believe we've reached the pinnacle of what a musky can grow to if allowed to reach that size because we've only recently gotten to the point where we're letting them get that big. There are a LOT of new fisheries cranking out fish of size and weight that 20 years ago were unheard of.
I don't belive 100 pounds is possible, or even 80. But 70 pounds? There is probably a 70 pounder or two swimming around out there somewhere. Someone will figure out how to catch her eventually. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1310
Location: Washington, PA | With ALL of the disagreements, untruth's, and arguments concerning the current world record('s), I look to beat personal bests, forget about the rest of the world. Frankly, I don't know one way or the other how big they possibly get.
Just my two cents. |
|
| |
|
| I am a firm believer that there ARE fish in excess of 60"s and definitely 70 #'s. I can't honestly say that I am not sure if I've ever seen a "70 pounder," but I know there have been some awfully BIG fish chasing lures and walleyes on Eagle!
With this being said, it was mentioned earlier, about "where are these fish?" One summer, back in 1999, when Weston was 10 years old, I was fishing a rock pile way down west, just before Buzzard Falls. As I had two other friends in the boat, Kevin & Troy, I was casting out, while they all cast towards the rock pile. I had a fish come in, and I literally didn't see it, until it was RIGHT HERE...8 feet from the boat.(which is weird on Eagle's West Arm....super GIN clear water) This fish was as black as COAL! I don't think this fish has ever come shallower than 15-20 feet IMHO. In order for a fish to stay that black, they aren't getting much light penetration on their bodies. This fish was pushing the majic mark, and was one of 4 fish I feel I've seen that are close to 60"s. It literally "shocked" me. The day was VERY overcast....low clouds, and very dark.
So, when it was said that the way to catch a new world record is vertical jigging, livebait, or deep trolling, I think I am in agreement.
Just my $.02 cents worth!
Donnie |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Do they exist? You bet they do. Think of the massive amount of water that is out there to be covered. Not just area of water, there is a massive volume of water to cover. Think of the odds of contacting that 'Giant'. You need to have your bait in the right area, right depth, right window. So many factors go into catching these things. Getting your bait directly in front of its nose is like finding a needle in the Sahara Desert. I hope I find that needle.
Mike |
|
| |
