|
|
Posts: 8863
| Seems like these days almost everybody has at least one fish over 50".. Not sure if its because the fishing is getting better, or if more people are fishing big fish waters, or if they're all just highly publicized, but it seems like 50" doesn't mean what it used to. It's still a heck of a fish, but it seems a lot of anglers are searching for something beyond 50" these days.
Granted, a lot of the fish you see out there have inflated lengths and girths. Pictures can be deceiving, but only to a point.
So is 50# the new 50"??? | |
| | |
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | I don't think so, Addict. I think when you first start musky fishing, you hang with guys mostly who have the goal of catching a 35 incher. As you become more seasoned you tend to hang with guys who are a little more accomplished, and the stakes go up as you hang with the hardcores. Still, most guys I talk with are always happy to catch a musky, whether it be a 35 incher, or a 50 incher. Most of all, 50 pounders are such rare fish, I could never set my expectations that high that anything else is failure. Not that many guys in history have caught 50 pounders. I would say a 40 pounder is the new 50 incher. That I could accept.
Edited by husky_jerk 9/25/2007 5:16 PM
| |
| | |
| Actually, you don't even hear many people say they got a 50" fish anymore. It's more like "I got a 50x24", or a "49x26". I've even seen a guy give a girth measurement for a 38 inch fish. I've never caught a 50 inch fish myself, but I know of quite a few guys who have caught more than 8 THIS YEAR. I guess I better get out more. I think with the restrictions here and in Canada, and also due to catch and release, that there will be more 50 inch fish caught in the next few years. I'm not sure how many 50lb fish are getting caught. I know Pete Maina thinks a lot of reported 40lb fish really aren't that big either. Maybe 40# is really the new 50"?  | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: On your favorite spot | The way some lakes are right now I expect to get my 50" before the year is out. People who can spend more time on these lakes, perhaps, can expect to run in to a fish pushing 50 pounds at some point this season, but when the Golden Age is over, 50" will still be 50". | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| I hope not. Fifty pounds is one heck of a big Muskie, and a tough fish to find unless one lives in a couple places in Muskie Nirvava land. | |
| | |
| Not many people will ever catch or see a 50 pounder, although it is a great goal for everyone to aspire to | |
| | |
Posts: 76
| I think 50# being the new 50" is pushing it a tad. I'll bet that only a tiny fraction of a percent have ever even caught a 40# much less a 50#. But if this is the case I have a feeling there will be a ton of unfullfilled musky fishermen at the end of their lifetimes. | |
| | |
Posts: 3511
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Come to think about it, those of us who constantly talk muskie in almost everything we do are the ones who hear all the talk of 50 inch fish. We have a TON of good sticks from this board alone out there that know what they are doing, have put new ideas into practice due to help from others on this board, and are fishing waters others only dream of fishing someday. We are a very fortunate group in that respect, and seeing/hearing about 50 inch fish will continue to be "commonplace" among the various active groups of muskie fanatics.
But...in the grand scheme of things...just how big is our group here and even extended some as compared to the entire world of those fishing muskies? How many guys out there are ones who just go out in the boat to have a brewski (Come on now...its root beer) and cast a few muskie lures, or those who fish them often, but are on different waters that in most cases have no trophy potential?
I would say that our groups online and who we may keep company with outside this board are a select few. Those who have caught 50 inch fish are still pretty slim as compared to the entire muskie fishing community...in fact, I am still one of those in that larger community, and I am 2-1/2 (extremely long) inches away from that select few in the "50 inch club" and I have been at this for 28 years now. I am one who does not fish trophy water very much, but I am doing it more so I know my time is coming....every day that goes by puts me closer.
50 to me is still 50 inches and no matter what, a 50 inch fish is one heck of a fish no matter how fat, what color, where, when, or how it was caught. The day 50 pound fish become commonplace in the muskie world will be the day that I have died, gone to heaven and made God my net-man (with that many 50 pounders swimming around, I'm gonna need it)
Steve
Edited by VMS 9/25/2007 9:05 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 638
Location: Bloomington, MN | I still think that it depends on the body of water you are fishing. I got a 47" & a 48" this year out of Mille Lacs. Those fish are a dime a dozen on that body of water. If I caught them on my new favorite "M" lakes (Moen & Mocassin), I might be calling Mr. Fittante or Mr. Lax. Mille Lacs is a incredible body of water with HUGE fish, but the Happy Northwoods feel is not present. I still have two trips planned this year to the big puddle in quest of the BIG one, but my heart and half my brain are still stuck in northern Wisconsin. All the muskies we catch should be memory trophies, if not..take up golf!!
Attachments
----------------
 Moen small.jpg (151KB - 70 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | are you smoking crack??
It may SEEEM like everyone has a fiddy to their name...but if you took all the muskie fisherman and then found out what the percentage of them that had fiddies, I bet the percentage would be a lot lower then you think. However, there is a percentage of that group that has multiple. There are plenty of guys on this site that have multiple fiddies...I will pick a number and say 25-30 for arguements sake...but how many of the lurkers/regulars don't have one?? I would say at least 4-5times that many.
Do folks REALLY know what it takes to even hit the 40 lb mark???
Here is an example that will put it into perspective.
I asked Steve Herbeck a couple weeks ago how many fiddies he thinks he has had in his boat over the years....he just laughed....WAY more than he could count.
Now, I didn't ask him, but I am pretty sure I know the answer, you ask him how many 50 lb fish he has had in the boat over the years....and I bet he can count them on one hand.....this guy GUIDES ON EAGLE LAKE EVERY DAY!!
To think 50 lbs is the next "50" is a HUGE jump. You can catch a PILE of 50-52 inch fish and not even crack the true 40 lb mark......
40 lber is a BIG hurdle....45 is a giant....50 pounder.....good luck with that one....some will get caught...MAYBE a handful a year on a GOOD YEAR....a handful..maybe...spread over the entire muskie fishing community....
Try for the lottery...you will be better off...
my two cents...
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 2378
| lambeau - 9/26/2007 9:43 AM
it seems like 50" doesn't mean what it used to.
it doesn't mean what it used to?
what???
the day a 50" doesn't mean much is the day i quit.
heck, the day a 40" doesn't mean much is the day i quit.
#*^@ right!
this is probably the dumbest idea ever...and, one I have seen expressed elsewhere as well.
50" is still a true trophy anywhere.
Edited by BALDY 9/26/2007 9:50 AM
| |
| | |
| 50# the new 50"...oh my god...not even close...i bet there have been less than 5 true 50's lbers this season...
50"ers are not easy by any stretch of the imagination...like Cory says, how many that regularly post on this internet forum have more than 1...not that many will raise their hands.. | |
| | |
Posts: 8863
| Cory, I didn't mean to insinuate that 50# class fish are or will ever be a common thing. Let's face it, most of them just never get that big. But compare today to 20 years ago. 20 years ago there were no muskies in many of the places that we're seeing big fish today. Looking 4 or 5 years ahead, even in Madison for crying out loud, you're going to see 50" fish popping up. They're catching them over 50" down of the freakin FOX CHAIN. Look at the Lunge Log, Cory -- there are TONS of 50" fish being caught all over, and in places that didn't even have muskies when you and I were kids.
These days, if you fish the right waters, any number of a dozen places I can think of off the top of my head, chances are you WILL eventually catch a 50".
But 50#? I know a few people who have SEEN one. Maybe three or four who have hooked one. But I'm not sure I know anyone personally who has actually caught one.
So what IS the new 50"??? 40#??? Anything over 55"x24" would get you to 40#. We see what, maybe one or two every season that go that big?
Or do you suppose that a lot of those 50" fish we're seeing lately were more like 46"? 
Edited by esoxaddict 9/26/2007 10:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2378
| So what IS the new 50"??? 40#??? Anything over 55"x24" would get you to 40#. We see what, maybe one or two every season that go that big?
**Why does there have a to be a new 50 inches? 50's are not all that common that they should be considered a lesser fish. That is what you are doing with this question.
| |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | I think Stocking Big Waters + Many people paying the top guides to fish them is why 50"ers are so common. | |
| | |
Posts: 1316
Location: Madison, WI | The biggest fish my name is a 45 which may have been pushing the 20 pounds. By no means fat, but if I ever do get a fifty with the same girth; I could care less about the weight, it's still a 50! | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Before catch and release the bench mark for a trophy fish was pretty consistently 30 pounds, length didn’t really matter. Lots of people fished lots of years and never caught a 30 pounder. Read the old books and old articles and you will see 30 pound mentions A LOT. With the advent of catch and release the new bench mark has been set a 50 inches. To the vast majority of anglers I believe that is still the goal when thinking about a trophy, but that knocks out a lot of very nice 47 to 49 inch fish. It’s really just a number and everyone has there own goals. Wisconsin Anglers where asked in a poll a few years ago what was a trophy musky and the majority answer was 50 inches.
With everyone releasing fish it’s hard to go back to a weight number for status as a trophy, but I bet if you ask the guys that regularly fish Mille Lacs they are looking for mid 50 inch fish, but still keep track of every 50 they put in the boat. So in my opinion I don’t think the bar has been raised, except for a very few lucky individuals. And I say lucky because these guys get to spend hours and hours on the best trophy musky waters in the world.
A few years back a well known musky fisherman caught a 49 inch musky in Illinois and made a comment something like “I have caught so many fish over 50 inches, a 49 incher doesn’t rattle my chain any more” That guy should loose his musky fishing card or be forced to fish the Tiger Cat flowage for five years.
The bar hasn’t gone anywhere, it’s just in the age of information we are becoming accustom to hearing about bigger and bigger fish. But these fish are coming from a very small percentage of the musky fishing range, and very few of us are getting the opportunity to fish these waters while they are at there prime.
To me a 45” fish is still a trophy and my goal every year, fishing mostly Northern Wisconsin, is one fish over 45”. Some years it happens some years it doesn’t.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 2378
| Very well said, Mike | |
| | |
| Like MRoberts says..it is definitely dependant on where you fish sometimes....in WI I think a trophy (for me) is 48" or bigger...I don't even have a 48" in wisconny...now when I'm in MN and I see a 48" come in I don't get my undies in a bundle cuz I'm up there for one reason and one reason only....50's...
A trophy is whatever you want...for me the number I shoot for in Wisconny is 48...MN 50 or bust!
| |
| | |
Posts: 8863
| And that's another thing Brad -- catching a 50 on a lake where the average fish is 34" is way different than catching one on Eagle.
And catching a 50" fish when your biggest is 55" compared to catching it when your biggest is 35" is a whole different thing.
So what is it that's so special about 50"?? | |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Take out all the 50's caught out of Vermillion, and Mille Lac and tell me how special a 50"er truly is. With the number of big fish in these waters x the number of fishermen pounding them I think people are being desensitized to how these fish grow in most bodies of water. I yawn when someone starts beating their chest with how many 50's they catch in either of these two lakes. Start telling me how many 50's you catch in Leech, Cass, etc and that turns my crank a bit more. Why? There's a much more balanced size structure in most other lakes. We'll all see this over the next couple years when M and V level out a bit.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I really think 50" means different things to different folks. As a kid growing up with parents having a trailer on a Vilas Co. WI lake, 50" was just a mythical creature. Once in my childhood, I got to see a 53" musky tied to a dock, and people came from miles around to see it(mid 1980's). I am pretty sure it was a fat 35 lber. As I grew up, 50" still remained the 'quest' for myself, and I realized it was actually much tougher to tangle with a true inland WI 50 than I had thought as a child. I still get shivers when a 50" follows or hits over in MN, in Canada, or on Green Bay, but I get the same type of feeling when a 46-48"er comes to the boat in inland WI. I don't fault those, though who have been spoiled by greatness in recent times, in other places. 50"ers are a bit more common now accross Muskydom, and people who have not been in the game too long, might not have the same special sentiment towards the great mark that is 50".
That said, many, and some people who have never caught a 50", seem to throw the 50", or 40lb, or even 50lb number around like candy anymore. I just don't think that many realize how rare an honest to goodness 40lb fish is anywhere. I doubt a true 50lber was even caught this year in the midwest. I will get blasted for this but I doubt that many of the reported 24" girths on 48-51"ers are within 3-4" of the true measurement today(not sure why my wife and I can only get 19-22" on most any measured 48-51.5" fish on most any water, but the same waters just seem to produce an inordinate number of fish with 25-28" summer girths year after year...). I just feel that we need to get back to a time/place where each fish just stands for whatever it is, and doesn't have to automatically meet some sort of standard to be 'accepted'. It may be why there are more 40lbers reported in WI in any given month nowadays than there were in any given season years back.
Use a tape measure, hold it tight around a 50" fish, realize it may only read 20.5", and move on, be happy you got a 50", maybe your first, and go drink a 12er of PBR. Don't feel that it needs to be 40lbs because Joe's fish, caught on the same reef last week, was reported to be so. Be happy with what it is and go try to catch another one. What is really hurt in all of this is the persons own realization of what something is after reading so many reports and seeing photos with said girths attached. When they finally look at their first 50" and automatically think it is a 24-25" girth, after years of brainwashing on internet boards and magazine articles, then actually measure it to see it is a very nice 21.5", they feel like there must be a mistake. The mistake is what masses are trying to make us believe right now, in that these fish are bigger than they really are.
Am I saying that we don't occasionally measure a 24+" girth? Gosh no, as they are seen far more regularily now than ever before too. It is just that an average girth, on an average 50" doesn't seem to hold enough credence for many anymore. As lambeau stated above, I'll take up golf when that happens to me.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/26/2007 12:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | AMEN BROTHER REEFER!!!
| |
| | |
Posts: 136
| I agree. I doubt very much that there has been a 50# fish caught in the states this year. However I do think one or two will be caught this fall in MN. In reality there have been very few 50# fish ever caught. I know they are out there, even 60#'s. But seeing that fish is like finding a needle in a giant hay stack. Catching it is like finding a needle in a field of haystacks.
To put it into perspective. I have held a 55.5 X 26. Run the weight on this site and it comes out to 46.9lbs!?
So how many 56X27's have been caught the last few years?
| |
| | |
Posts: 91
| Don't you think that reguardless of Musky fishermans passion/insanity that there are two kinds when it comes to their goals. Those who have caught 50" fish and those who have not. I caught a 49"+ last fall three days before end of the season and it was 35lbs. I could barely hold it up after all was said and done and it was just awesome. I think any fifty has to be a thrill for anyone. | |
| | |
Posts: 8863
| Reef Hawg just figured out where I was going with this whole topic...
Putting some sort of "standard" in place for what is and isn't is "big" fish is like trying to define "loud"...
Using obviously inflated descriptions of pictures of fish you've seen on the internet to judge the worthiness of your catch, is THAT what's it's all about for people?? Bragging about how many 50's you caught on Eagle or Mille Lacs, judging yourself or anyone else on the size or the number of fish, it's all kind of stupid. I'll admit, in my head I'm always waiting for that 50" fish, hoping I catch "a big one", but that is so far from what it's all about. And this:
"I just feel that we need to get back to a time/place where each fish just stands for whatever it is, and doesn't have to automatically meet some sort of standards to be 'accepted'."
I couldn't have said it any better.
I have no measure of success other than my own personal satisfaction, which depends on so many factors that trying to compare it to someone else's fish caught on some other lake some other time is just plain stupid...
If that's what its about for you, than fine. But I don't think you're enjoying it ike you ought to be. Which brings me to a story:
August 8, 2007, fishing Eagle Lake out of AML.
The morning started at breakfast, with Herbie (as usual) deciding who was fishing with who. When he got to my table he said "ok, Jeff... you're fishing with me today. Travis, why don't you guys come and film with us."
So here I am. I'm on Eagle lake, where big musky dreams come true, I've got Steve Herbeck guiding me. This guy is kind of a legend, and I've heard he's not easy on people when they make rookie mistakes. I make rookie mistakes. I've had exactly one big fish encounter, and I blew it! Not only that, but Travis Richardson in the boat with us. The first time I ever went musky fishing Travis taught me how to use a baitcaster and how to do a figure 8... Here I am in the boat with two people who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, in a place where I have as good a chance as anywhere in the world of (missing/losing/screwing up) the fish of a lifetime. No pressure, though, right? And to top it all off, there's a dude with a camera, filming a freakin TV show... Stupid crap starts going through my head, like "don't throw your rod in the lake, don't fall overboard, don't get a bad backlash or cast over someone else's line..."
(dumba**, you don't normally do any of that, why should now be any different?)
We have a slow morning. We see a couple really nice fish, the nervousness has now worn off. On the way to another spot. I am feeling good about our chances today. The wind is blowing, we got some clouds on and off. Man, Eagle lake is beautiful! So far the camera guy hasn't pointed the stupid thing at me, which is good. I HATE cameras. Turns out Herbie is just a regular guy, swears even more than me. We reach a new spot. oooooohh this looks fishy. Of course all the spots do. I throw a cast, and I say something along the lines of "all right guys, how bout we stop ***ing around and somebody catch a fish?" Everyone laughs. I'm thinking about hopw I've been watching this same black/orange spanky bait coming through the water all morning long. Hmm, I could have been ok bringing two lures. Man, my arms aren't really tired at all, I figured by now I'd be jello. I'd throw something else for a while, but this is the only lure I've seen any fish on...
My concentration is immediately shattered when my lure gets about 15 feet from the boat, and I see the unmistakable flash as a fish swipes at my lure. I tried to talk, but all that came out was "guh". As I go into my first turn I see.... NOTHING.
$%^#! She's gone, I must have scared her off. Dammiit! Wow, that was a good fish. Come around the outside, no fish, no fish, no OOOP there she is, she's back! Come on, come on, still there, still there.... Wide turns, man, wide turns. That's a long fish man, don't make short turns! Nobody (except the voice yelling in my head) is saying a word as we watch this fish go around and around. I bring the bait down alongside the boat, and she's on it, RIGHT on it, come up, around the outside, there she goes she's gonna eat. I see the tail flip and she charges the bait. Contact! I THINK I set the hook. The next thing I see is a big white mouth, *SPLASH, SPLASH, SPLASH!!* holy $^&% it's freakin out, man! I gotta get that fish back under the water! Everyone is yelling. Someone says "GET HER HEAD DOWN!!" I must have done that, because now I'm on my knees, and she's going straight down. Wow. WOW... I'm having a hard time turning the reel handle. You could hear a BUG fart, man, nobody's saying a word. The rod's doubled over, and she's just pullin'. Oh, this is so %^$&in cool! Man, this is great! I make some progress, she makes another run. Finally, I start gaining ground. Holy crap how'd I wind up on my knees? I'd better stand up. I do. Oh good, Herbie's got the net. I get my first real good look at her. Wow. WOW! Definitely not as big as some of the ones we've seen today, but a whole lot bigger than any one I ever caught! Ok, there she is. "Herbie, you ready? I'll bring her to you. Nope, she ain't ready. Ok here she comes again, we got her, we got her. Fish goes in the net. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
YEAH!!!! %^&* YEAH!!!!!!!!! High fives all around. I gotta kneel back down. I don't think I was breathin the whole time. I got adrenaline overload here, man. My ears are ringin'! I set my rod down, and notice how bad my hands are shaking. Holy $%#$, man, I gotta just kneel here for a second. I don't know if I can stand up or not. Holy %^$& I hope I didn't p*ss myself! Herbie's got the fish unhooked. Thank God, my hands are shakin so bad I don't know if I could do it. MAN look at the head on that fish! Holy %^&% this is so cool! Herbie's got the fish, good. I might have dropped the %^$* thing I'm shakin so bad! Finally catching my breath. What? Pictures? Oh $^&% that's right -- my camera ain't workin'! Herbie hands me the fish. Wow, it doesn't seem as heavy as I thought it would be. Somebody got a picture, right? Good, ok. Herbie takes the fish back. I wanted to let her go, but that's ok, just get her back in the water... We measure it in the water, 47". *whew*, that was awesome. I'm still shakin! The fish swims off. I wonder to myself if guys ever get to the point where they don't get excited. I'm still trying to catch my breath. Just then Herbie says "F***, lookit my legs are shakin, man!!" He's not kidding, he's in worse shape than me! We all laugh. Wow... freakin WOW, man...
In that moment, it didn't matter whether that fish was 42" or 47" or 52". In that moment, I realized that THAT'S what it's all about. It ain't about sizes or numbers or any of that BS, man -- its about being out there with your friends, and knowing that any cast, man -- ANY cast you throw could be the cast when that fish comes charging up behind your bait and eats it right in front of you. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | holy cow ... i didn't read it either ... | |
| | |
Posts: 8863
| I type with two fingers Sled. It took me forever, at least read the story! | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | "t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-today junior" ... or ... "run with the ball" ... would be what my kids would be screaming in the back seat of the truck listening or reading that one ... | |
| | |
| you can spot a 27" girthed fish a mile away....i have no idea what tape measure some are using but man, I must have a 40" waste with that tape measure...
I agree Jason...we must just find those skinny 22-23 inchers in MN....
good stuff... | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | t t t t t t today junia! hehehehehe, Sabatooo, Tallyhoo hoo.
Good story EA, and what it is all about for you, me, and many. Not saying we are 'right', but the graduations in our individual pursuits for big fish still need realistic boundaries, and they aren't limitless. Many here consider our/themselves priveledged for having been able to spend time on, even getting to be one of the first to explore some of the up and coming......now peaked and overfished...hehehe..LOL...hehehe..... Musky fisheries. While we haven't seen the best in many places, a time could come, possible near future on many waters, where we all step back and look at RIGHT NOW, as the good ole days of Musky fishing.
Very unique and special times in the now, and I just cannot wait till I am 77 with one grandkid on my artificial knee and the other fetching me cold ones and beef sticks, telling them how things 'used to be'.... so there!
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/26/2007 3:35 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 350
Location: WESTERN WI | None of this matters when you catch one. It only has to meet your own approval. If thats 50 inches, 50 lbs, 36 inches, or the fact its a musky. It does not matter. All that matters, is that you approve it's a worthy fish, and you get to decide what that is!
And remember, there is always a bigger fish.
Edited by Got Esox? 9/26/2007 9:33 PM
| |
| | |
| Somedays its better to catch 1 then none
No matter what the size is
So you caught a great big fish,is it a life altering moment?
I dont think so | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Most people don't have a LEGIT 30 pounder, very very very few have 40 pounders.....legit 50 pounders....very hard to come by.
But I am talking about LEGIT 30, 40 and 50 pounders.... | |
| | |
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | These have been some interesting posts. esoxaddict... holy smokes. Tell me you were on the clock when you did that.
I'd just like to throw a HUGE thanks to all you guys who DON'T club 40# fish... because you make the 50# fish possible.
For me... 50" will always be the "magic number", but releasing a 50# fish is the ultimate goal. | |
| | |
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | ROFLMAO- I like EA's & Reef Hawg's persepective. How loud is loud? It's really all about envy. Is it 50" or 50#? A +50" is easier to prove. Just take a picture of her laying on the bump board. This is like asking if the various length girth formulae are 100% accurate! However, if this is really an issue for you, I think you're in the hunt for the wrong reasons.
Want to know what a 50# fish feels like? Go to the feed mill or pet store & pick up a 50# bag of dog food/feed. Now hold it out in front of you like you would a muskie for a photo! Want to know what holding a world record class ~70lb muskie would be like? Have friend put a 20# bag on top of that one!
EA- great story!
Have fun!
Al | |
| | |
Posts: 2089
| 50 is not an easy number anywhere.50" is still the Holy Grail no matter where they swim in my opinion. 50 pounds???? That's a whole different class of fish. 54X30 made 53X25 look anorexic. Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Good write up there EA......I agree with you completely. Last night I went out on my own for the full moon. I had high hopes of catching a nice fish, I do every time I go out. But after the first hour of not seeing anything my hopes kind of sunk a bit, but hey I was out fishing so I didnt really mind, I was just happy standing in the river. Surprisingly there was no one else out there so it was quite peaceful, that is until a fish hammered my topraider about 15 ft. from me. I burried the hooks into her and she dug down into the current. I couldnt tell how big it was, but I didnt think it was the monster I was hoping for. Eventually I got her over in shallower water and saw that it was around 37 inches, just an ocular estimate, I didnt even bring a tape. I got the hooks out, brought her back out to deeper water and she took right off. Was this the biggest fish of my life, far from it. But I was still shaking like a leaf in a hurricane, thats what it is all about. If I never catch a 50 inch fish, I'll be ok with that. Its all about being on the water. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| Alot depend on the circumstances I believe. I have been lucky enough to catch 2-51's and a 52. I'd be the first to admit my first 51" was blind luck, catching him on the first day on a new water, but you know what, I'll take it. The other 51" was on a spot that has produced really well over the years for big fish, so that was pretty cool also. The 52 was a fish we had raised for 3 days, and was able to finally get her to eat. All 3 fish we caught under different circumstances and all were cool in my book.
On a side note, my most memorable fish (well, other than the 52) was a 49 1/2" I caught under brutal weather conditions. I couldn't care less that that fish wasn't 50.
| |
| | |
Posts: 324
Location: Bloomington, Illinois | EA...Good story...That really captures the whole deal...I've felt that on a 40 inch fish...Admittedly my PB...I can't imagine the feeling of an upper 40 or bigger one...I hope I get to find out before the end of the season | |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Take it from someone fortunate enough to have handled more then my share of big fish that 24 inch girths are rare and those bigger even more rare.
I still think 50 inch will be the benchmark unless you have become one of the few true trophy muskie hunters where you're after 40+ pounders. Sure 50's might still be nice but there are fish over 54 to be had.
Me and my client just discussed this yesterday, you see he just released the fish of a lifetime ( this guy lives on one of WI premier lakes and caught his first 50 with me 2 years ago after 28 year of fishing muskies ) when he asked me was that only a 25 inch girth? This fish was a pig @ 55 x 25 and yes it looked real fat but that's what it measured. I actually told him that he now knows that most reported 24+ inch girths are ether estimates, errors or lies. The best part is the guy isn't spoiled as I came home today with a check for when he comes back next month to fill a cancellation I just had 2 days ago.
I loved reading the story about the 47, we just had a great experience 2 weeks ago with a fish snapping 6 times at a jackpot before actually eating the bait. It was a nice 44 and no where near the 50 inch benchmark but will forever be a memorable fish.
I've always said the day I stop getting the shakes when a client boats a trophy I'll quit guiding. No it doesn't need to be a 45+ pound fish or even a 50 iincher, depending on the situation the definition of a trophy can change.
And no I don't think 50 pounds will ever be the benchmark. The last couple of years have produced some 50 pounders but I can remember just a few years before where none were caught. | |
| | |
| I guess it all breaks down to what an individual feels is their best fish. My brother's longest is a 53 inch fish, but I bet if you asked him what his best catch ever was, he'd say a 49x26. He's caught a few dozen 50's, but I think he still considers that the biggest overall fish he's put in the net. Depending on which L x L x G formula you go by, I think that fish was right at 40lbs. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | A true 50 inch fish is a great fish on any water. I can't believe that any muskie angler would not consider it so. When you say all the 50 inch fish being caught I can only think one thing. Probably only half of them are really 50 inches. I've seen way too many photos of fish that were said to be 50 inches or 30 or 40 lbs and I'm sorry but there is no way that they are that big. So now if you disregard half of the fish that are said to be 50 inches its makes the legit ones just abit more impressive.
For 50lbs being the next 50. Wow I just don't expect to see many of them as that is really a pig.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Please allow me to redirect this post/question a bit. Richard (Trophymuskie) made the following comment:
"Take it from someone fortunate enough to have handled more then my share of big fish that 24 inch girths are rare and those bigger even more rare."
Guys and gals I've got to tell ya that the vast majority of "reported" girth measurements being posted on message boards these days are beyond "normal reason". Especially summer fish (with some exceptions of course).
I have been at this game for over 50 years and have caught my share of big muskies (once I got out of Wisconsin where 98% of my muskie fishing has been done and 2 1/2% of my 50 inchers have been caught-1/39). Only a couple of the giants I have caught had girths that exceeded 24 inches!
In 1988 I caught a 52 x 25 (taxidermist said 26 girth-after all the guts had settled) at the end of September that weighed 44-4. I could not believe the size of the girth on that fish as I was playing it and afterwards. Since then I have caught and released 4 over 55-inches to 57 inches; all were summer fish with modest girths (didn't measure) likely not exceeding 23. I also caught and released a very late fall/early winter muskie that was only 52 inches (didn't measure girth) that weighed "nearly" 50 pounds (ok, so it was closer to 48).
My moral? While I'm not suggesting that anglers are lying about all these giant girths we hear about, I submit that in "most" cases, an inaccurate measurement is being hurriedly made on a fish with a water/air bloated girth. That is why reducing girth by 1" for live releases before using weight formulae to "ESTIMATE" weight is recommended. Like Richard said, 24 inch and over girths are RARE!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 9/28/2007 4:29 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Richard, well said. I have quite a few 50's from Wisconsin, and none were over 24". Only two I have boated were for certain; both were from Wabigoon and both were very memorable fish. | |
| | |
| the difference between a 24" girth and a 26" girth is only 2 inches, right?
wrong.
in reality it's over 8% difference.
expressing the difference in inches makes it seem somehow like a small amount.
that's the same percentage as turning a 50" fish into a 54.15" fish!
when you compound it in the lxgxg/800 formula, a 52"x24" fish is 37.44lbs, whereas a 52"x26" fish is 43.94lbs.
but that's only a 6lbs difference, right?
wrong.
the difference between 43.9lbs and 37.4 lbs is 17%.
those are big differences, not small inches.
at times i've been accused of being overly optimistic when assuming misrepresented sizes are not done on purpose, but rather are the result of poor measurement techniques, etc. i've always maintained that it just isn't that common for people to knowingly lie about a fish in that way.
however, after some of the picture shenanigans i've seen, the Muskies Inc data showing how few 49.5" fish are caught and how many 50" fish are caught (it's just a 1/2", right?) and the things people are willing to do to get anonymous praise for something online, i'm changing my opinion and believe more and more that the inflation of sizes is in fact purposeful by many people.
imho, it'll always happen as long as discussions such as "is 50# the new 50 inches" create false standards for personal success. i'm going fishing tonight, but it's not to try and meet some internet gold standard. i'm going to have fun and hopefully catch something.
| |
| | |
| buy a chatillion weigh scale and there is no need for this girth x length stuff....weigh the fish in the net and then subtract the net weight......then let the fish go....takes not even 10 seconds to hook the scale to the net and lift it up....no more guessing.. | |
| | |
| Larry write's " That is why reducing girth by 1" for live releases before using weight formulae to "ESTIMATE" weight is recommended." I have a hard time believing that subtracting an inch actually works. Why not subtract 2" or 3". There is no way to no how dense a fish is with out wieghing it. One fish could be full of air and another full of shad or cisco's, you just never no until you put them on a scale. The length/girth formula is a good tool to get a good estimate nothing more or less in my opinion. | |
| | |
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
My comment was referring to obtaining a closer or more reasonable "estimate" of weight. Your method is of course, foolproof, quick, likely easier on the fish and less subjected to scruitny. But let's not start weighing every fish we catch either, just as we don't need to know to the 1/4 of an inch how long that mid 30 inch fish is! | |
| | |
| I can understand the reduction of 1 inch on the girth.... Makes perfect sense. When a fish is out of water, the pressure acting on it's body due to normal air pressure is less than what it is in the water. Case in point...go get a pair of hip boots or waders, put them on and wade in...you will immediately feel the extra pressure from the water.
In the end of it all, I look at every fish being special to me...it's better than not catching one at all, and in the overall grand scheme, just being on the water is what its all about.
Enjoy the hunt, watch and enjoy the call of the loons... gaze at the sunset...the fog rising off the lake on an early morning hunt....a deer coming to drink some water at the edge....enjoy the freedom of watching an eagle soar with the air thermals, an osprey hit the water full steam for a meal...
Catch a fish...savor the fight...enjoy the beauty of the fish and the environment he/she came from, Say a word of thanks for all you are blessed with and put-em back for another day...
Steve | |
| | |
| VMS writes
"I can understand the reduction of 1 inch on the girth.... Makes perfect sense. When a fish is out of water, the pressure acting on it's body due to normal air pressure is less than what it is in the water. Case in point...go get a pair of hip boots or waders, put them on and wade in...you will immediately feel the extra pressure from the water. "
With your pencil legs in the hip boots or waders that makes sense BUT put the same hip boots or waders on Andrey the giant and there is no decrease because there full of MEAT, actually there would be an increase because his legs are so much larger than yours.
Pressure won't effect a fishes girth when it's packed full of MEAT, on second thought, out ward pressure would be effected. | |
| | |
Posts: 3511
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Physics 101 and anatomy 101 my friend who cannot sign in for some reason...
If pressure is reduced, an object will expand. Water pressure is higher than air pressure, and the fish has a body that is designed to be supported by the extra pressure the water exerts... Doesn't matter if it's andre the giant or a flamingo leg. The larger the body, the more it can compress... Plus...with an air bladder and a body cavity that is NOT all muscle it will expand quite easilly. If girth were measured around the head or tail, then you would be correct...
Steve
Edited by VMS 9/28/2007 1:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Not to rock the boat here....but the only thing that will really compress under the pressures (or lack of pressure) we are talking about is the air bladder. Water does not compress (98% of tissue is made up of water).
I have seen a process that uses 6 X the pressure of the deepest part of the ocean (Mariana Trench) to pasturize products. It is done using water pressure. You will only see deformation of what ever you put in the equipment if it has air in it. If you put a muscle in this equipment under those pressures...it comes out looking exactly the same....(you should see how cool a styrofoam cup looks though!!).
So what I am saying, if a muscle isn't compressed under these high of water pressures, then it sure isn't going to make any difference whether the fish is in the water or out, even with an air bladder. What you DO get is a reproportioning of the mass when the fish is in the water versus out.
There is your science class for the day :-))
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 170
| Back to the original question....geeze, I hope 50# is not the next benchmark. I think ALOT of people would be setting themseleves up for a real let down. | |
| | |
| Thanks for the lesson C
Let's not mess with a formula that works for ESTIMATING wieght.
Here's a perfect example why there is no need to subtract an inch off of the girth.
http://www.tonyzappia.com/archive.php?start=30&end=1
The formula allready under estimates this fish.
| |
| | |
|
This is an interesting topic, one that I think has a different answer for different fishermen.
For some, I think the 50" mark is not enough any more. Now that doesn't mean they don't love to catch those "small" fish under 50", but the goal isn't just to get a 50".
I think there are several reasons for this, one, many anglers have go 50"s, or numerous 50"s.
The logical next step is to up the ante, shoot for 52", or 54" etc. Deer hunters love to shoot those 10 Pointers, but after you've got a few, your out there for the King!
I also think there are those that have done well on the new, stocked lakes in MN, and now they are looking for the challenge of 50"s in lower density, native waters.
Or to catch 50"ers a certain way, like topwaters or home-made lures.
Personally, I feel most satisfied, or proud of my 52" out of Leech, even though that isn't my biggest fish.
Trophy is relative to the individual, and we've all got different experiences an expectations.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest:
Your Tony Zappia "link" example is off base. That is a DEAD musky. The girth reduction recommendation is for using the formula to calculate an ESTIMATE of weight for a LIVE muskie. | |
| | |
| Larry
So your going to tell me a dead Musky wieghs more than a live musky?
How about if I put this dead Musky back in the water and girth it, would I add an inch because it's dead or would I subtract an inch because it's in the water? Or would the dead musky's girth be...
Leave it alone, it aint broke. | |
| | |
| so I have only spent 20 + years trying to catch the elusive 50 incher and this september I have boated two and just becuase I did not girth them or they are not over 45 lbs makes them less of a fish, huh , guess I will just keep castin ' <'{{{{><
| |
| | |
| Personally, I'd say a 54" is the new magical fish..... Just my opinion...
Girth................ Well I thought every fish had a 26" girth or better??????
Edited by jclymer 9/29/2007 10:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Well, it may be for you..... but 54" is one heck of a big muskie. I had quite a few 50s before I got my first over 54, not a realistic goal for the average Muskie angler, IMHO. | |
| | |
Posts: 117
| dont know about that really.. a 50 is still a 50.. but black is the new red..  | |
| | |
| Guest I believe that Larry is saying to subtract an inch because when the fish dies it loses about 1" on the girth. An example would be the Gelb fish from last year. | |
| | |
| "but 54" is one heck of a big muskie. I had quite a few 50s before I got my first over 54, not a realistic goal for the average Muskie angler."
That is exactly why I think 54" is the new magical #.. 54" musky is a fish that most average musky anglers will never catch.. If it is a magical #, you would not want the average joe to head out and catch one consistantly.. That is exactly why people question the 50" fish as the "magical" fish now, all kinds of average joes are popping 50's on a consistant basis... | |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My personal magic number is 58, not that I'll ever get one.
I don't think the majority of Muskie anglers have caught a 50. Sure, a fair number of big fish are caught every year, but it's not all that easy for most, IMHO.
If it's 54, even a smaller segment will. Setting the bar awful high at 54". | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| A 50" is a heck of a fish regardless on where it was caught. I think the next magic number should be 1" bigger than that persons personal best.
If someone is working their way up the 40" ladder, then in reality how you fish for mid 40" fish is different than how you go after 50+'s. Once someone gets to the point where they want to target bigger fish (If they want to), they have to change their tactics if they really want to make a concerted effort to go after them.
Me personally, when I fish Wisconsin I pretty much go after anything that wants to be dumb enough to wanna bite. When I go to Canada my focus changes a bit.
Edited by 55esox 9/30/2007 11:43 AM
| |
| |
|
