|
|
| In the life and times of louie spray there is a pic of a fish that makes louie sprays records look like a bait fish. I think it was caught in the late 1800's. Do you guys really think there are 70 or 80 pound fish out there. What about the fish that bob had on video. Are there guys out there that hunt that fish???It seams like most guys that catch these big fish no where they are and camp on them. Atleast that what louie did!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| No question they are out there. And there will be more of them as long as we keep releasing them especially fish from the Canadian Shield. But fish that big don't show up often. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Watch this video:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/dl_wmv.asp?clip=480 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| Guest,can you direct me to where i can see the fish Bob had on video please,i would like to see it thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 76
| 70 or 80lbs? I don't think so. I think with the catch and release ethics, technology, and sheer number of fisherman we have on the water these days someone would have caught one by now.
Heck the current record is most likely a fake. I would just like to see a legit 60 pounder caught and I would be happy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dr. Casselman, one of the top authorities on this subject, says in the video onsite from the MI Muskie Symposium a couple winters back that Georgian Bay, for example, has potential for about 60 pounds, Wabigoon 50's and the St Lawrence 70, if I remember correctly. Of course, there were other waters mentioned too, I'm shooting form the hip here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I feel the "potential" is there for a fish of 70+ pounds...we have lakes that have forage bases that can sustain a fish of that size, but... with all living creatures there is a limit somewhere, and personally, I feel it is somewhere in the upper 50 pound range. We have very few well documented 60 pound class fish and those fish that have been documented seem to have stories/heresay that could potentially lead to the contrary.
It would be nice to have it happen. It would definitely put the "debate" on the largest fish to bed, but my gut feeling is we will not see it. I am a bit pessimistic about a new record...just don't see it happening. Keeping my dreams in check here too..
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| That Bob M fish was no doubt very large... but a world record? C'mon. In the summer or even early fall like that very unlikely. It was definitely BIG, but not THAT big...
Give a fish ample space, good forage, freak genetics, and low competition and you have the makings of a very large fish. There's got to be at least one out there, somewhere. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| IntroC - 10/31/2007 4:24 PM
70 or 80lbs? I don't think so. I think with the catch and release ethics, technology, and sheer number of fisherman we have on the water these days someone would have caught one by now.
Heck the current record is most likely a fake. I would just like to see a legit 60 pounder caught and I would be happy. Ken O Brians 65 pounder from Georgian Bays Blackstone Harbour is as legit a 65 pounder as you can get.Weighed on certified scales in front of many witnesses including many from the media,the true no bull @#$#@# world record in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Bemidji, MN | where is Dr Casselman coming up with these numbers, and how? If he is using an L infinity equation, this should be taken pretty lightly, especially due to the difficulty of sampling large numbers of muskies. I guess I should back up for the non-biologists. L infinity is a number taken from an equation based on age vs size of fish. It tells us the largest THEORETICAL size a fish COULD grow in a lake under ideal conditions. BUT, it can become very skewed depending on the sample of fish looked at. for instance in my fisheries biology class we came up with an L infinity for perch on a certain lake that was up around 3 feet long! this was due to a very low number of year classes being sampled. I tell you what, I would love to catch a 3 foot perch! But the point is it isn't going to happen. I am not trying to debunk Dr Casselman, I just want to know how he came up with the potential for 60-70 pound muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| I believe Bob's fish if not the world record was darn close. I bet it was 60X30+. Run the numbers. Plus there are biggers ones there. The world record will be broken in Canada. |
|
| |
|
| this video?? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8907011895104614769&hl=en
btw bob look pretty good when its time to guess the size of his fish.i dont think 70 pounds musky live on this earth,but im not a dr 
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | J Nail - 11/1/2007 11:21 AM
where is Dr Casselman coming up with these numbers, and how?
He uses the cleithrum bone from large deceased muskies to come up with his maximum growth potential for a given body of water. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | J Nail - 11/1/2007 12:21 PM
where is Dr Casselman coming up with these numbers, and how? If he is using an L infinity equation, this should be taken pretty lightly, especially due to the difficulty of sampling large numbers of muskies. I guess I should back up for the non-biologists. L infinity is a number taken from an equation based on age vs size of fish. It tells us the largest THEORETICAL size a fish COULD grow in a lake under ideal conditions. BUT, it can become very skewed depending on the sample of fish looked at. for instance in my fisheries biology class we came up with an L infinity for perch on a certain lake that was up around 3 feet long! this was due to a very low number of year classes being sampled. I tell you what, I would love to catch a 3 foot perch! But the point is it isn't going to happen. I am not trying to debunk Dr Casselman, I just want to know how he came up with the potential for 60-70 pound muskies.
Abstract.—Growth of muskellunge Esox masquinongy from 12 Ontario sources was investigated by examining 582 samples from the Cleithrum Project archive and other specific studies; 88% of the samples were from angler-caught “trophy” fish. We detail sampling problems and develop methods for resolving them. Muskellunge from some sources were unsexed; sex was discriminated (probability of correct classification, 98.3%) from the von Bertalanffy growth parameters ultimate length (L8) and growth coefficient, K. When one sex was inadequately sampled, the von Bertalanffy growth parameters of one sex were used to estimate those of the other. When samples were small and inadequate (<11), we used concordance sum of squares to match growth and give an interim estimate from the adequately sampled source with the best growth match. In Ontario populations, mean ultimate total lengths range widely: from 81.4 to 140.0 cm for females and from 70.7 to 115.9 cm for males. Females can be grouped into three types of growth, producing either large-, medium-, or small-bodied fish (ranging from 140 to 127 cm, 126 to 114 cm, and 113 to 102 cm and smaller, respectively). We describe and categorize growth and growth potential to establish standards for detecting change in exploitation and for reviewing minimum size limits (currently underway) based on growth biology to help sustain and even increase the size of muskellunge populations while producing high-quality trophy fisheries.
You can get a copy of the study from [email protected]
Of if you know someone that can download the pdf from AFS online journals.
Edited by Will Schultz 11/1/2007 2:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| I'd venture to guess that right now, maybe somewhere like Eagle, Maybe Mille Lacs, Green Bay, Georgian bay, there's a fish that's 70#. As for catching it? I don't think we fish where she lives first of all, and second of all, I would imagine that a fish that weighs 70# would have just eaten a big meal and probably wouldn't eat anything we have to offer. But I don't doubt for a moment that there are at least a couple freaks out there, it happens with every species. Genes, forage, habitat, and ultimately luck will all play a role. 80#? That I doubt we'll ever see. |
|
| |
|
| 60 pound plus muskies have been caught and verified, and 60 inch muskies are also caught though not widely reported. A freak 65 to 70 pound plus musky certainly might exist someplace, especially in big water and never be seen or even tempted by one of our lures. Weight is also situational because girth varies by time of year as well as last meal.
Many of us are seriously looking for that ONE special musky although we will likely never see or hook her! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 76
| kawartha kid - 11/1/2007 11:16 AM
IntroC - 10/31/2007 4:24 PM
70 or 80lbs? I don't think so. I think with the catch and release ethics, technology, and sheer number of fisherman we have on the water these days someone would have caught one by now.
Heck the current record is most likely a fake. I would just like to see a legit 60 pounder caught and I would be happy. Ken O Brians 65 pounder from Georgian Bays Blackstone Harbour is as legit a 65 pounder as you can get.Weighed on certified scales in front of many witnesses including many from the media,the true no bull @#$#@# world record in my opinion.
Its just that the fish of the past have so much myth and fantasy and rumors behind them that knowbody knows what to believe, although I do believe Ken's fish is THE legit world record. I would love to see a more recent 60lber caught and verified. I think today if one was caught every measure imaginable would be taken to clear any doubt. They just aren't being caught. Makes me wonder if they are out there.
What I should have said is I would be happy to see a modern day 60lber caught. I definately believe a new record is swimming out there somewhere if 65lbs is the real record. I don't think a 70lber will ever be caught.
Edited by IntroC 11/1/2007 4:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | How big was that wack-o big fish that the walleye guy caught from the Fox River? The one that Joe uses in his replica ads?
Wasn't that a legit 60 pounder? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 76
| Anyone know what Bob M estimated that fish at? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Just watched the video......what a pig. What a heartbreaker............ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I am not trying to debunk Dr Casselman, I just want to know how he came up with the potential for 60-70 pound muskies.'
Take a look at the work on this subject Dr. Casselman has overseen and conducted and watch the attached Symposium video if you haven't already. Dr. Casselman is recognized as one of the leading authorities on the subject. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,I respect Dr Casselman very much,the calculation potential is and still remains speculated potential growth
None of that size (Over 60 pounds) have ever been documented accuratly
In this day in age with the educated anglers that are fishing,would not just 1 be caught?
Its a cold blooded animal with average life expectancy of 24 to 27 years in proper growing regions
A few hover over or near 30 years of age
One more thing that will not aid to potential max growth,fishing pressure but we all like to fish and it is a priviuledge we have the right to exercise
I am one of those that believes,they dont get that big
Simple reasons in calculation of years of life expentency+ true growth potential+regional /favorable weather patterns that induce maximized foraging + diversity and abundancy of forage - fishing pressure = minimal chance
Fish of this nature and potential of possibly attaining superior size are being caught,but they are not growing to expected maximum growth
In my perception,there are too many factors to be just right before all the right elements collide to allow such a unique fish to maximize its potential growth
These elements must be stabile for many years so that growth maximizations would occur
Its my observation,its not occuring and has never occured
I aint so sure that only 1 true 60 pounder was ever caught,some may have come close but they did not age more to see their full growth potential.Most 60 pounders report are guess estimated with few properly or truthfully documented
I do hope someone gets a true bonified over
As the old story goes ,hope in one hand
Crodile are speculated to grow to 24 feet,here's alink to the largest one ever documented
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-kvAl-xs7A |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1289
Location: WI | I'll put money on a 60 coming out of Mille Lacs within a few years. Those 50+ lbers are only a big meal away from 60.
I'd like to see a new WR, just for the excitement factor. Hopefully it will be caught by a muskie fisherman. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Considering the fish currently coming out of Mille Lacs potentially have 10 years of their life cycle, the future should be interesting to say the least. I'd be curious for Dr. Casselman to age the 55 x 27 that came out of there last weekend! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | First of all right now 65 pounds was the biggest ever caught. I know of one more over 60 caught from GB as well. I`m not counting those caught out of season ( I know of two ) as they don`t count, they naturally would weight much less by the time the season opened.
Bob's fish is a big one but probably a 40+ pounder no more. They really do look that big in the water.
Dr. Casselman is the leading authority here in Canada when it comes to muskies, he`s mostly responsible for the trophy size limits in Ontario through his cleitrum project.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Richard,
He's considered by most the leading authority pretty much everywhere, far as I know. How was your year up there? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | While out fishing my lake where we have a cabin one year (walleye opener) the DNR was pully the fyke nets (sp?) and I saw 3 big muskies in one net of the 7 out....all noteworthy size (i aint tellin)....and when they did a shock survey out there we were out poundin and the DNR guy said they had one come up over 50lbs. My dad(taxidermist) got in a fish from the DNR (It will be in their office when the mounts done) but they wouldn't say where...other than "around here". No idea where or how it was caught but I think it was dead floating based on the amount of water in the skin...it was a huge fish with a lot of potential. I recall a lot of bigger mounts that came in to be judged as over 30 years old (as i was growing up til now) based on that Clareathra bone, or however you spell it. I don't believe that any strain is different, I just think that however stressed they are determines their lifespan..ie: how many times they were caught, how they were handled etc. I know there's plenty of fish in every lake that has never been above the surface but that's where WE come in:)
some of the fish I've seen stayin at Evergreen Lodge on Eagle in Canada, were huge...every week we stay up there we see huge fish and boat a few but just think. Anyone that has been up there and fished consistently on their good spots can say these fish GOT to be old! The old white whale up there....oh man...50+lb fish chasin baits, smart at that, and turnin around..oh mannnnnnnnnnnn this post makes me wanna get there now haha.
Plus, search your archives for a fish over 60lbs on Lake Minocqua.
Edited by Andy 11/3/2007 6:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Steve Worrall - 11/3/2007 6:33 PM
Richard,
He's considered by most the leading authority pretty much everywhere, far as I know. How was your year up there?
It's far from over Steve fall is just about to start up here water temps are still in the 50's LOL Like always we're spoiled with a bunch of 50's and even a couple of 45 pound class fish in September. I can't wait to see what we'll catch in the next couple of months before the ice comes in.
The guy that is up this week always catches big ones including a 56 and 54, so we're looking good for a big girl this week especially with the new moon this Thursday-Friday. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI |
Heres a quote from the wisconsin DNR "In the early 1950's the Wisconsin DNR took eggs from a 68 inch musky from Lac Court Oreilles "I believe this is were the root stock came from going into mill lac's.I think a 68" musky would be close to 65 pounds full of eggs. |
|
| |
|
| Cool Video. Was that eagle?
I think a 70 could live in the great lakes system. I don't think you'll see a legal 65-70lber out of the Fox River to be honest. I think a 65+ fish needs to be a very old fish.
I think if a fish utilizes the warm water discharges they will grow faster but they will not live long.
Also, What percentage of the big fish caught by walleye anglers in the spring survive? Every time you see a picture of a Slob caught in the spring there's a good chance that fish is dead even if it was released. They either have to deal with a 1-2 hour fight on a spinning rod or a rapala stuck in their gills. I don't think a musky has a good chance to live through 20-30 springs in the Fox. I have no bad-will towards the walleye fisherman; it's not thier fault; it's simply an odds game based on percentages.
If they live offshore that's a much different story. Maybe someday |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, maybe not a "legal" fish, but very close as it was caught in April... I will also say that Mr. Dempsey is a fine angler to land that fish on that gear. It would be nice to know how much roe it contained.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/printer-friendly.asp?t...
Incidentally, if you believe the measurements in that first post (I don't have any reason *not* to, mind you--I have just never spoken to either guy), here are the various weight estimates from my calculator program:
Wilkinson: 75.1 lbs
Standard: 78.6
Crawford: 65.0
Casselman: 70.5
Hannon: 62.7
Certainly that fish looks like it would go over 60 pounds, but who's to say for sure? How many of us actually get to SEE a fish of those proportions...we simply can't even judge it accurately. But Mike Donofrio (Lead Fish Biologist for the GB system) tells me that the earliest fish were stocked in '88 or '89, so it seems likely that its under 20 years in age. Who knows how big some of these fish will grow in another 4-5 years...
But on that note, I agree with you in that it's likely the biggest fish in Green Bay never see a lure, and may never even come close to the mouth of the Fox River. I think if you want them, you going to have to go find them out in the bay--and probably well up into the bay. With all that water, it's truly a needle in one HUGE haystack.
But I have a plan, lol... I have a plan!
TB
|
|
| |
|
| Great Fish, congrats to the angler but like I said take a look at the percentages. Maybe 1 in 10 fish over 50" hooked on walleye tackle actually gets landed. The other 9 have a 5" rapala stuck in its throat. What percentage of fish survive a 1-2 hour fight on spinning tackle?. I talked to a kayaker who saw 10 dead musky on the east side in one day last spring. It is what it is. I've got a lot of respect for the angler who let it go to give her a shot at survival.
|
|
| |
|
| i dont know why you are posting this fish weight estimate.the fish was caught,when the season is closed.btw if you remove all the eggs in that fat belly you will be surprise.this fish is far away from a record.to be honest i give no credit to this kind of fish............. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | ron f - 11/4/2007 1:20 PM
i dont know why you are posting this fish weight estimate.the fish was caught,when the season is closed.btw if you remove all the eggs in that fat belly you will be surprise.this fish is far away from a record.to be honest i give no credit to this kind of fish.............
Well Ron, the formulas that have been derived for estimating the weight of muskellunge are simply based upon the length & the girth of the fish. While I don't have all of the cleithra data, my guess is that there were fish containing spawn included in the data set. Thus how could you prove that the formulas *aren't* accurate?
In any event, in researching the derivations of each formula, I could not find anything that invalidated a fish "caught out of season." They are what they are...estimates. If the fish would have spawned, certainly it would have been much thinner--thus the weight estimations would have reflected that, and the values obtained would be less. But since the fish was released, we will never know just how accurate the formulas are in this particular case.
My purpose for posting this here is to try to shed some light on the true weight potential of a very large muskie--I feel it is larger than most guys seem to agree with. But whether you feel the fish is credible or not is another matter entirely, and you are entitled to your opinion. But I think most people would agree (or have agreed), it is truly a magnificent catch on such light tackle.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
| Bob's fish was analyzed at 62-64 inches and 36 in girth. I don't believe that but the jackpot gives a good vantage point. A jackpot is 6.5 inches long plus hooks. That mouth dwarfs that bait. But that fish and her sisters live in 45 feet of water and eat 5 lb trout all day long. There are similar lakes that have similar fish I believe but a lot has to go right to get it in the boat. A fish like that will be caught in the next few years then all the debate will be over. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Bemidji, MN | You know what the most important thing I learned from taking statistics classes on the way to getting my fisheries managemnet Degree? Statistics are a bunch of BS that can be manipulated to suit the needs of the scientist. Getting a degree in science has taught me one other very important thing. DOUBT EVERYTHING. look for proof. When I SEE a 70 pound musky, then I will believe it! we can speculate on this all we want, and Dr Casselman and others can do all the equations they want, and I do not doubt that he is the one of the most KNOWLEGEABLE people out there, but we are playing with imaginary numbers here, there are way too many factors influencing the age and growth of a fish, and just because someone says, according to a calculation, there is a 70 pound fish out there, does not make it so. The von bertalanfy equation works better with more fish, it is easy to go to a lake and kill a couple hundred perch, or dare i say walleyes, to get a good idea of an age/growth relationship on a fish population. But the $%& would hit the fan if someone went out and chopped the heads off of a couple hundred muskies to get the cliethera out to come up with a better idea how big they can grow. My point is that I don't think we really have a good idea, there is till way too much to learn. Plus, I don't know if any of you have ever caught any REALLY old muskies or pike for that matter, but from my own experience, and from talking to several fish biologists, some really old fish can actually LOSE weight late in life for whatever reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 76
| Dempsey's fish, what a friggin monster. Would love to know what that fish actually weighed. Judging by the picture I would agree that fish could have easily exceeded 60lbs. Then again pictures are very deceiving as we all know.
Edited by IntroC 11/5/2007 5:53 PM
|
|
| |
What do you think fish can top out at?