|
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm over in LaCrosse at a sports show waiting for the show to open on this frigid morning. WOOW it's cold out there..
During the last few seminars I did at the shows, I asked the crowd to raise their hand if they had a legal muskie to their credit. Most everyone did.
Then, I asked them not to lower their hands until I hit a number larger than their personal best. No hands were still up when I hit 50" except ONE.
I got to thinking about that. Most anglers don't have much opportunity to travel to the Muskie hot spots across the country, and are fishing muskies locally for the most part. Those who live in the meccas of the sport....well, they are pretty lucky. Point is, if you want to catch really big muskies, you need to fish where there are really big muskies.
But what about waters where the fish cannot reach that somewhat sky pie-ish mark of 50" or more?
Dr. Casselman said it best in his Symposium presentation. In a nutshell, he stated that on lakes where the fish reach 45" max, that fish is a true, unquestionable trophy. I'll take it a step further, and propose that if an angler fishing those waters catches fish in that category with regularity, that angler is extremely accomplished and should be as proud of those 44 to 45" fish on his/her waters as a Guide on Mille Lacs is with a year of several over 50.
What REALLY is a true trophy? From Spider lake in Oneida County, it's this fish...and deserves as much WOW factor as a 56 off of Eagle.
Perspective, I guess...do you fish where 50" fish are very very rare? If so, what's a big fish from your local waters?
Attachments
----------------
 IMAG0033.JPG (107KB - 288 downloads)
IMAG0035.JPG (104KB - 250 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I totally agree with you Steve, designation of a fish as a trophy is an extremely variable benchmark. It is also a very personal issue. I believe there's a whole suite of variables involved in getting a fish to reach it's maximum size; not the least of which is location, location, location. For me, living in one of the more non-traditional muskie areas imaginable, a true trophy may just be getting one here. That does seem to be the goal of many of the people that I get to fish with. But having caught a few, I do see myself longing for fish that hit the mid to upper 40" mark (40" is minimum length limit here; and they're all tigers). Trophys? who know, but they are for me.
S. | |
| | |
Posts: 90
Location: ne53 | I agree that each body of water will produce its own class of "trophy" fish. I probably look at our (Nebraska) mid 40" muskies the way the northern muskie states would look at their 50" and over fish. Nebraska state record Muskie from 1992 was 41 pounds caught on a Shad Rap, state record Tiger from 1991 was 33 pounds caught on a Rat-L-Trap. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission considers any Muskie/Tiger 40" or longer and released back to the water to be eligible for a "Master Angler Award". I'm not saying we do not have any 50" skis in our state, but they are going to very rare and particularly very special. Looking at Master Angler records reported to the game and parks from 2003 to 2005, (they are a little slow at record keeping) there were only 21 reported awards with the largest being a 48" tiger. I doubt that is enough incentive to merit a visit from Sorno. | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | jpine - 2/10/2008 9:21 AM
Looking at Master Angler records reported to the game and parks from 2003 to 2005, (they are a little slow at record keeping) there were only 21 reported awards with the largest being a 48" tiger. I doubt that is enough incentive to merit a visit from Sorno.
Don't count on it... 
S. | |
| | |
|
Everyone's answer here will be very different, and the definition of "trophy" is so personal.
For some, it's just hitting a bench-mark size or length.
For others, it's about the where and how of the catch that make it a trophy.
In my "home" area, a 50" fish is very reachable, and most angler's I know have done it, some multiple times.
For me, a true trophy status comes at 48" in a natural, non-stocked lake.
That doesn't mean I scoff at stocked lakes, or you shouldn't be proud of catching stocked fish.
But at the end of the day, I'll take a natural over a stocked fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| Very interesting topic, and its something I have thought about quite often. Most of my fishing is done in Vilas/Onieda, in addition to a week in Cananda each year. Its no secret what Canada can spit out, so I won't go there, but in Wisco I don't believe I have ever seen a 50" fish (about 15 years experience). My biggest caught is a 47 1/2", and I can really think of maybe 4 or 5 that I would say were in the 48" class. Me personally I would say 44-46" fish to be a very repectable fish for the waters I fish, and 48" to be the "trophy" for up there. obviousely there are bigger, but from what I have seen with my own eyes (4-5 48's in 15 years.....I'm setting that as the bar).
It's funny because I bowhunt for deer alot, and am lucky enough to have access to some prime land. I set my personal minimum at 150", so in a way its almost like my deer situatution is like musky fishing a Vermillion, Mille lac, LOTW or whatever. So I think I have perspectives from both side, in the fact that if I run across someone from Wisco who is regularly boating fish in the upper 40's I will tip my hat. Whereas, someone down here who is consistantly dropping 1 1/2 year old deer, that's like bragging about 36" ers from LOTW.
My 2 cents
| |
| | |
| This is a great topic...I recall when I guided I took two guys out on Kinkaid...In a day and half they boated 7 muskies...They were actually disappointed because none where over 45inches. It kinda baffled me at the time, but people have some pretty interesting expectations these days. Having spent a decent amount of time fishing all over the country and Canada, that if you want a giant sometimes you are going to need to travel to get it done... | |
| | |
Posts: 354
| I might be different from most but I just always seem to think every fish over the 40" mark is special. It just seems once they reach that size there is a whole different level of fight to them.
Edited by greenduck 2/10/2008 11:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | To me, and up until now my limited time to fish ( I retire March 28th) any Muskie I catch is a tropy and I get a complete thrill out of it. To me it is the experence, not just the size. | |
| | |
Posts: 476
Location: WI | For Wisconsin, I'll consider any fish caught over 45" a good fish, and a fish of 48" or better a trophy. I'm still trying to get a 48" out of Wiscosnin, my largest is at 46.5".
For Minnesota, to me, any fish over 50" is a trophy, but another one isn't going to be a replica until it reaches 54" or so.
I'll take a fish anyday, and after a day of casting and getting nothing to bite, a 38"er can become a trophy that day!
GotOne | |
| | |
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Since my muskie experience is so far limited to Iowa, seeing whats avalible to us in our waters I would have to say 50". | |
| | |
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | On my home waters, a mid 40's fish is quite rare...so...a 45 on those waters is considered a trophy to me. There are bigger fish in the lakes, but with very limited pressure, and with one person having fished waters for over 50 years, and he is right at, or just under 10 fish at 50" or larger. I have managed 2 at 44" with my wife nabbing a 44" as well. I have seen a couple of giants in my 28 years on the water, but have yet to put hooks into either of them.
I have been expanding my home waters to an extent and now have a 46" from a different lake, but is part of the same system of lakes.
My day is coming...but I do think Steve Worrall hit the nail on the head squarely...sometimes you just need to put yourself on the waters that contain bigger fish to get to that magic 50" or higher mark. On my lakes, a fish of that size is a True and treasured trophy...and...a fish of that size maybe come every 5 - 6 years or so...to one lucky angler on the water...
Steve | |
| | |
| I took an eight year old kid out with me about two years ago and he succesfully boated a 35 incher. And that was a trophy to him.  | |
| | |
Posts: 1936
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Steve,
This is a good topic and quite valid, many good replies and thoughts. This is something I've talked about with friends and colleagues over the years based on the all the variables...
Trophy, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder in the most realistic sense.
Your first, your personal best, a best for body of water potential, etc.
When I was guiding on a regular basis I had people with 34 inchers that smiled just as much as the guy with the 493/4, which was my personal best for putting soemone on a large fish in my home waters. They were all trophies to those individual people at that time.
It's most about memories, you know...like catching a nice one with your buddy just to have him have to cut a hook out of your finger while you're attached to the bait that's attached to the fish... Memories are what makes it speacial or a trophy.
Way too much emphasis on the big Five-0 these days. But if I lived or fished regularly on water that produced numbers of that class of fish, then I guess that might be the benchmark... But here at home, I've told people for years, you get one in the net over 44-45 and you've done something most have only wished to do on these waters.
Travel safe Steve... Brutal here in Eau Claire right now. Glad I stayed back from the Milwaukee show with this weather system.
Best,
Curly | |
| | |
Posts: 315
| i think a "trophy" is a personal thing more than anything. if you are able to fish waters a lot that hold trophy fish and are seeing and sometimes catching fish in that class then your "standards" for a trophy class might be different than the guy/gal that doesnt have the time on the water or the waters to fish that hold those fish at all
-b-
btw my personal best is a 45" so i guess a trophy to me is anything above that | |
| | |
Posts: 40
Location: United States | Just as in real estate, it's about location, location, location. I grew up muskie fishing in northern Illinois, lived in Tomahawk Wisconsin and then lived Maple Grove Minnesota. Today, I'm back in northen Illinois (sucks to be me).
In Illinois, to me 45 to 47 inch fish should be considered the "trophies". Very few 48 to 50 and over 50 are very rare. In Wisconsin, 48 to 52 inch fish to me were the "trophies". In Minnesota, over 50 inch fish to me were the "trophies". This is based upon my experiences.
Interesting enough, my average length fish from both Illinois and Wisconsin are right at 36" and 40" from Minnesota.
I think my younger brother said it best - "You've ******* ruined me!!" He had only ever fished in Illinois and his personal best was a 44". This past summer we took a trip to northern Minnesota and he almost beat his personal best by 10"!! A 53 1/2", 38 1/2 lb slob. In Illinois, that fish would have been a new state record. Gets right back to location, location, location!!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 376
Location: Lake Vermilion Tower, MN | The word trophy is a
word I get sick of hearing these days.
There was a time when just getting out and catching a Muskie of any size was enough for most anglers.
Now all of a sudden everyone seems to rate the experience by how many fish are at or over that 50" mark. It's as if the trip was a complete failure without that "Fish of a lifetime"
Trophys may be great for your ego, but they won't change your life, or change the way people think about you. Fishing should be it's own reward and "trophys"
are just a little gravy to pour over the total experience.
"Ace"
| |
| | |
Posts: 7
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa | your first | |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | On the LOTWs I always think anything 48" or better is a true thophy. There are many caught every year that are this big or bigger, but a 48"er from the LOTWs is a true trophy. Lots of people who have fished LOTWs for years are still looking for their first one.
Doug Johnson | |
| | |
Posts: 1530
| onb my waters a 50 turned heads a decade ago. on st clair we are blessed. but as you stated doug. catching a 45 in waters that only holds that size IS a true trophy. we are driven to believe its all about the fish. as one gets older, and wiser it becomes apparent. its the hunt, the fun with friends and just plain enjoying the outdoors. seems many forgot that part. | |
| | |
Posts: 1188
Location: Iowa | It is held in the eye of the beholder...
Big Perc | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm not really talking about what is a PERSONAL trophy to most, although that does enter into this.
I believe a 41" fish out of water that doesn't support fish larger is just as much an accomplishment as a 54 out of Mille Lacs. | |
| | |
Posts: 1188
Location: Iowa | very true...just like a 45" plus fish out of most iowa waters would be considered a trophy to many...it all depends on a lot of variables that no one is ever going to agree 100% on...that's just the way us muskie fisherman are wired...
Big Perc | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Steve,
I'm answering this in all seriousness. My answer to your question would be last one I boated. I have always loved the chase. I know that catching a 50" fish is very special and something I finally got the oppurtunity to do this past season. I've fish many years for that fish and I truly feel like that was a trophy fish for me. I also remember catching a 43.5" fish after a week of struggle and that fish felt every bit as much a trophy as my 50" did.
We are so blessed to chase this fish on so many different bodies of water. I always thought that the 50" mark would be a pinnacle for me. Sadly, it wasn't and maybe sadly is not a word I would use (perhaps my wife would) but rather it was another story or adventure in this second life of mine. At any rate a Trophy is in the eye of the man or woman on the other end of the line.
Great question Steve,
Dave | |
| | |
Location: Athens, Ohio | Here's a shot of a trophy fish caught by a trophy angler. Thanks to Lazer for forwarding it to me, m
Attachments
----------------
mattklyhold.jpg (62KB - 224 downloads)
| |
| | |
| a trophy in Madison waters to me is 48" and above...they are rare and not many get caught per season with noone yet to have a verified 50" plus... yet...
In Northern WI where I fish quite a bit I still use the same 48" as a the trophy mark...in MN to me a 50 is a great fish, it's the mark I shoot for every trip but with how many 50s are getting caught over there a 50 might not be the trophy number it once was...52 now?...it all depends like you and others have said it's where you are fishing....
you can't catch what isn't there...
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | I see where you're going with this Steve but I tend to disagree with the different waters and 41-54" comparison. Maybe the gap is too great for me to get my mind around it?
Starting at the top, a 54" is a true trophy anywhere and every angler reading this would consider the day a huge success after watching one paddle off. Not so with a 41"... even if it was from a farm pond. Why? Because we are aware that muskies can get considerably larger.
Granted, not all waters contain 54" and we must lower our trophy expectations on these waters, however, therein lies the difference... lowered expectations. Also, of equal importance to me, a true trophy muskie should be able to test tackle and skill to qualify and although low 40's can be scrappers, they are not worthy adversaries for today's typical muskie rod and reel.
I would have to say that an anglers overall experience plays more of a role than the body of water in determining what a trophy is - though it's a very subjective subjet- it is more along the lines of one's own personal thoughts than the body of water IMHO.
With that said, I still think it's a bit of a stretch compare a 41" and 54" as having equal trophy qualities.... by that reasoning the 41" is equal to a 60" St. Lawrence. Good debate... I'm in... as long as you don't call me a muskie snob because I truly appreciate em' all! | |
| | |
| How can this topic be discussed without anybody mentioning pressure or keeping fish.
I fish quite a bit in Indiana. On a normal day on Webster, you need to get there early to get a spot in the lot. Delayed mortality and people keeping fish also goes into the lack of 50s.
It is not uncommon to see 30 boats on Webster lake that has 500 acres on the main lake. Now look at what that pressure ratio would be on LOTW. You would be talking about 1 million acres (approx), you are now looking at 60,000 boats on a given day. With delayed mortality and people keeping fish, obvioulsy the number of trophies caught immediatley at the numbers will be huge, but after time and harvesting, the yield of 50s will be less and less over time.
What does Eagle have, 50,000 acres. For how long do you think Eagle would be giving up giants over time with 3,000 boats pounding the water day in and day out.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3157
| here in Minn I think its 52' | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| How about:
"large enough to be considered extremely rare on the body of water on which you caught it"
Edited by esoxaddict 2/11/2008 1:09 PM
| |
| | |
| I have to agree with the comment how a 41" in my eyes will never be considered a "trophy" even if it comes out of a lake that there are very few over 40"...I think for any body of water, a 4 footer or better is where the min "trophy" bar is set...maybe , maybe not..but I can't see getting overly jazzed up if I got a 41"er on a lake with 30"ers in it...? | |
| | |
| ..but I can't see getting overly jazzed up if I got a 41"er on a lake with 30"ers in it...?
i might, IF i down-sized my gear.
for example, if i was fishing TigerCat, i'd probably use lighter spinning rod/reel, line, etc. since you'll generally catch fish in the 26-32" range. catching a 40" fish on that water with that gear would be kinda cool and a decent challenge. not necessarily "trophy" cool, but matching your gear to the fish makes anything fun. mind you, i don't ever see myself targeting muskies on that lake (or any of the overstocked 28" minimum lakes), because i'd rather go somewhere with a shot at a "real" trophy.
i've got a 46" from my local 70 acre pond, i'm proud of it because it's one of the biggest fish in an overstocked lake full of 34-38" fish. it's rarity makes it cool for me, not necessarily how long it was. of course, there's a reason that this past year i spent more time on MN waters 8 hours from home than on this pond 5 blocks away...
| |
| | |
| yah ok that 46 you say was cool, as it was rare...but is that a trophy to you?
the question is what is a trophy to each one of us...where is that line set?
41" even on spinning gear sure is fun to catch, but is it a "trophy"?
not to me... | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| Here's a couple more thoughts. I believe each person's idea of trophy is unique, and it can change throughout their careers. I think it would help in answering this question by defining what a trophy means to someone. When I first started out, 50" was the magic number (it still is!!!), so that was where the bar was set for me. It had nothing to do with quality times spent with others, first fish, last fish, or even where that fish was caught. A few years ago I caught a 51" and decided to get a replica. After that fish I adjusted my sights a little bit, and decided that the next step up trophy wise would be 54". Since then I have caught 2 bigger than the one I have a replica of, but they weren't 54".....so my personal quest continues. Will I get there? Who knows, but I'll have fun trying.
Trust me, I value every fish I catch, whether it be sub legal or a 49 7/8", but I wouldn't go as far as to say a 42" fish for me is a trophy. Are these fish special? Yes. Trophy? Not for me anyway.
I remember the 1st "big" fish I caught like it was yesterday. It was a 42" out of northern Wisconsin, which I was (and am darn proud of), but at the time knowing what has been caught out of the area I wouldn't have said it was a trophy, just a nice fish that made for a great day on the water.
Like was said before, everyone is going to have their own idea of what "trophy" means to them, and I think that is what its all about. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If one has a choice to try to catch the largest fish IN TigerCat, and does so regularly, is that not as much an accomplishment as catching the largest on ANY body of water regularly? What if TigerCat was your ONLY choice most days? | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I've got to agree with Mr. Nelson. I enjoy catching any musky that feels so inclined to hook itself on the baits I've thrown, but when it comes down to it we're all after the biggest fish we can get our hands on. If we only have access to a lake like Tiger Cat that mainly have stunted fish, sure we'll fish it and have fun but we know that the fish get bigger in other areas/body of waters. So I guess to me a 'true' trophy is a 50 incher or greater. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| Would that person on Tiger Cat run to Lax and have a repo made?
Edited by 55esox 2/11/2008 2:15 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 431
| At 24 years old with not so many years of experience under my belt, my goal every year on LOTW is 50". I still haven't gotten there, though I did nail a 49.5 a few years ago. Living in Missouri, I realistically have a shot at a 50" fish only during the 7 days of the year I spend on LOTW. Every fish that I catch over 40" is a great fish. Instead of focusing on size, my new goal for this year is to catch a musky in 9 months out of the year. (I definitely will skip January & February, maybe december.) I think this is a much better test of my skill. | |
| | |
Posts: 41
| This is a good topic. Haven't been on the boards much or fishing too much lately, but everyone is different, and too each his own. A guy that can afford to do some traveling and fish trophy potential water... Will view big fish only as true trophies. However a guy that can't get out much, or can really only afford to fish his local body of water would have a completly different view, ESPECIALLY if those waters had limited trophy potential.
Look at the guides on webster for instance. The guys no doubt know their stuff and consistently put fish in the boat year after year. Hopefully one of them will see this and can let us know how many 50+ inch fish he or clients have put in the boat. And if the answer is zero or 1, does that make them any less of a fishermen? I only know of a couple 50's out of that lake, and for the pressure it recieves, there should be tons of them if they are there. I personally believe anything over 47" that comes out of that lake is a trophy... but that's just me.
Edited by JZDANK1 2/11/2008 2:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2089
| I had the opportunity to work the Milwaukee Show with the Lax boys. The trophy deal is up to a lot of interpretation. Believe me, Rick does a lot of replicas that are nowhere near 50" or 48 for that matter. "True" trophy? In my opinion, it's the fish that is special to you for whatever reason no matter how big it is/was. Where you fish and how long you've been doing it are certainly 2 variables in the equation. My "brother from another Mother" ordered a replica this weekend of a very special fish, even though he has caught bigger. Can't wait to see that one! The Kid will be smiling down. Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 250
Location: Pittsburgh, PA | thats a good question on where on fish the 2 biggest muskies ive heard that have been caught are 48 and 47.5 by the same guy but there might be some bigger but around here any thing over 45in is huge | |
| | |
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Every fishermens prospective of what size of a fish is a Trophy is in the eye of the Holder! A 57" Musky may be a Trophy to me,but someone starting out may get just as exited with catching and releasing a 40" Musky. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| Ok, heres something else to think about. I live in downtown Chicago and have only a handful of options within an hour or so. My boat is stored up in northern Wisconsin, so that limits my choices even further.
I have fished the Fox river below the Chain of Lakes and have caught fish up to 44" while wading. Granted there are some bigger fish taken out of the river, but the majority of fish I caught have been mid 30's. I would think that a mid 40" fish would be in the upper % of larger fish for that system. Me personally, I wouldn't consider that fish a trophy.
| |
| | |
Posts: 897
| I have to disagree with any statement about a fish needing to be a certain length to be a trophy. Check out this fish my buddy caught.
http://outdoorsweekly.com/assets/readers_07_aug_export/images/bob_f...
I don't think that anyone would disagree that this fish is a trophy fish and it was only 46". I think that people focus too much on length instead of the overall quality of the fish.
-Chris | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| I have to agree with the majority of jpine's response, being a native Nebraskan. However, having the opportunity to fish some of the "top trophy waters", I've been lucky.
In my humble opinion you really can break it down t every lake, every body of water has its own trophy class. I fish a couple bodies of water (with regularity) that a 40" fish is a giant. Sure, there are other lakes that I fish that would dwarf that trophy, but it's a trophy none the less.
Breaking it down to the lake, would sometimes be meaningless to the rest of the musky world, as well, because they may not have a grasp of what that body of water is, doesn't make it any less a trophy does it?
Then, there will still be the segment of the population that says if it isn't 50" it isn't even a fish. That's fine too, because those with any knowledge of biology will debate, and clarify, that each body of water has its own limits.
Great topic, IMO, and very good answers. | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| Fish that would be a "trophy" to me:
45" Tiger
48" Madison fish
46" Fox Chain fish
52" from Lac Seul, Eagle, LOTW, etc.
Anything over 45 pounds
Not that I'd be any less excited catching a 50" fish anywhere out there, but catching one where nobody has ever caught one before is a lot different than catching one where it's the third one this month.
Something ELSE to think about:
Granted, pictures don't always tell the story, but which if these two fish would you consider more of a trophy?
Attachments
----------------
47.bmp (132KB - 217 downloads)
50.jpg (26KB - 229 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All,
I didn't necessarily ask what YOU consider a trophy. I asked what IS a true trophy considering each body of water, local bodies of water, and out to regions in the Muskie world. I was and am making the point that if someone is consistently catching Muskies that are about as large as they can get on any water body, that person is catching that SYSTEM's 'trophy' potential fish. If that angler doesn't have the time or cash some do to run up to LOTW or MN or (God forbid) NE Ontario, then is he/she to be in despair that he hasn't the 'talent' you have?
Deer hunters understand what I'm trying to say. Trophy potential for a specie of deer is largely dependent on environment and food, subspecies, harvest each season, genetics and overall population. Sound familiar? Yet I clearly understand if I take a low end Pope and Young buck in the area of Oneida County in which I hunt, I truly have accomplished as much as someone in Alberta's Whitetail paradise has taking a mid quality B&C. You better believe I am mounting a 145 class whitetail from Oneida county, but would not even consider it if I was hunting Alberta. No one expects the whitetails to be equally impressive between Arkansas and Ontario, why would they? A big buck for one area is a MONSTER elsewhere, and an average deer in yet another location. But if I am consistently taking bucks with as large a rack as can be expected here, am I less of a hunter or have I accomplished less than a fellow shooting 170 or better class animals in paradise? Give me that week in Alberta...and send that fellow to Oneida County for the same week. When folks who regularly hunt the big whitetails in exotic locations visit my house and look at my mounts, they ask, " Did you get those bucks around HERE? Nice animals, man!" Would that same question arise if I had a 43" repro from TigerCat on the wall?
I'm talking to the 'trophy' bar being set at an unattainable point for many because fish of that size do not exist in the waters they are able to fish. Many very accomplished lifetime muskie anglers feel like they are diminished standing in the shadows of anglers here who have fished Mille Lacs for all of a few years. I'm saying a 43" fish from a creek in Virginia is as impressive to me as a 56" fish from Eagle. I'm saying that expectations like we see now in this culture plant unrealistic goals in many minds what Muskies in THEIR waters should look like and be, raising hell with local fisheries managers who have to try to explain the obvious to someone not very willing to hear that truth, and disappointing many who post their personal best here only to have some Schmoo rudely point out that fish is small in comparison to what is caught in their back yard..... And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport.
| |
| | |
Posts: 897
| Exactly how I think defining a trophy should be approached. Well said Steve.
-Chris | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| sworrall - 2/11/2008 3:40 PM
...I'm saying that expectations like we see now in this culture plant unrealistic goals in many minds what Muskies in THEIR waters should look like and be, raising hell with local fisheries managers who have to try to explain the obvious to someone not very willing to hear that truth, and disappointing many who post their personal best here only to have some Schmoo rudely point out that fish is small in comparison to what is caught in their back yard..... And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport.
If we are expecting things from our fisheries and the DNR that are not biologically attainable, than YES, that IS a problem.
But if what some faceless internet screen name types on a message board diminishes your accomplishment for you, than I say it's YOU who might have a problem.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5
| I think big is big. For deer it's either in the book or not, doesn't matter where it came from. There is no WI P & Y or TX B & C, you make the cut or you don’t. Personally I think the books are a good arbiter of trophy animals.
I passed 50" last year and now 40lb's is the goal. I know it won’t come out of Mille Lacs because I don’t like to fish there. But it won’t matter to me whether I catch it on eagle or green bay or luck into one in Vilas co. 40lbs is a big, rare fish...Trophy fish
I think a true trophy animal or fish might represent a specimen that only 2 to 5% of the people who regularly pursue that species are able to harvest or C and R.
I'll try and post a Rhinelander buck for you Steve that will go up well against anything Alberta has to offer.
Attachments
----------------
rhinelander14.jpg (10KB - 199 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You have missed my point entirely. Of course the exception to the rule will show up now and again, but that buck is past even that for this area. Sort of like this fish for the lake it came from...
Attachments
----------------
IMAG0004.JPG (82KB - 236 downloads)
| |
| | |
| I'm talking to the 'trophy' bar being set at an unattainable point for many because fish of that size do not exist in the waters they are able to fish. Many very accomplished lifetime muskie anglers feel like they are diminished standing in the shadows of anglers here who have fished Mille Lacs for all of a few years...And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport.
imho, yes and no.
if someone is made fun of, or otherwise berated by others for celebrating a smaller fish, that's a serious problem. obviously, it's something we work very hard to prevent here on MuskieFirst, but it happens and it's a shame when someone feels the need to anonymously snipe at something about which someone else is rightfully proud.
if someone questions their own accomplishments, it's important (as you point out) to recognize the possibility of the water they fish for a more accurate comparison.
at the same time, i think there's real value in recognizing and setting a bar for true trophy accomplishment across the entirety of the species range. that's what the new modern world records organization is all about. knowing what's realistically possible in the right waters and circumstances helps everyone to measure their own accomplishments, and more importantly to DREAM about. there's a mystique that's important: i know i grew up looking at big fish pictures and thinking, "some day i might catch a fish that big!" it usually involved thinking about a great trip to some far off waters where the fish grew to that size.
that last bit is important: knowing what's possible in the ecology of your home waters protects you from the deflation of comparison, and the wild craziness of "strain speculation"; but it's also good to know about the true possibilities of the species in the right waters where we might dream of traveling to some day.
in the 1st or 2nd issue of Esox Angler, there's an article by Tony Rizzo about fish weight's and the weight formula. he essentially says that because the formula is imprecise and may inflate fish weights, that it diminishes the accomplishments of anglers who have verified (weighed) "trophy" fish. he used as examples a number of released fish which had estimated weights heavier than the verified weights of some of his bigger fish, and he didn't like it.
if we can recognize the value of smaller, water-specific trophies, avoid the petulance of "you're diminishing my fish", and also celebrate the truly great trophies across all of muskie-dom, then i think we're in a very good place.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'if we can recognize the value of smaller, water-specific trophies, avoid the petulance of "you're diminishing my fish", and also celebrate the truly great trophies across all of muskie-dom, then i think we're in a very good place.'
Dr. Casselman's point exactly, and mine. Repeatedly, in case you somehow missed it.
What does a world record have to do with the outside potential of a stream in Virginia? Absolutely nothing. I wouldn't expect to catch one there, but if I did catch a fish as large as any ever caught there, I'd feel pretty accomplished. | |
| | |
Posts: 5
| "You have missed my point entirely."
I do that often, just ask my long suffering wife.
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | This is an interesting topic.
I get to fish the best waters in WI each yr from Green Bay to Sawyer Co, to Vilas Co etc. I consider myself a serious musky fisherman. I probably musky fish about 20 days each season. I've been targeting primarily musky for over 10 yrs. I've got all the best tackle, read every musky publication I can get my hands on & I've fished with a few guides and some really accomplished musky fisherman along the way.
All that being said. My largest musky casting is still only 38". I've caught a handful of fish from 40"-45" on quick strikes, but nothing over 38" casting.
I've spent a good deal of time on these boards looking at pictures of giant fish being caught all over the country. Big fish being caught by small children & old grandmas wondering "When's it gonna be my turn at a big fish"?
With all that being said I still love musky fishing and spend all my time thinking about my next chance to fish. While any fish over 40" would be considered a trophy to me, I think any fish from WI 48" or larger would be considered a trophy fish from what I've seen here.
Grass, | |
| | |
| for perspective, of the 1080 muskies registered in 2007 by the Capital City (Madison) Muskies Inc chapter, only 69 fish over 45" were registered by 30 different anglers. 2 anglers accounted for 20 of these fish, the majority caught only 1.
that means only 6.3% of the fish registered in our chapter were over 45", and the Madison club is one that has many fishermen who are willing to do a lot of traveling to try and catch big muskies.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Excellent point, Mike, and I'd add the Madison Chapter sports some pretty impressive resumes and talent... | |
| | |
Posts: 5
| Mike, how many or what percentage of those fish were over 50"? | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | happy hooker - 2/11/2008 12:14 PM
here in Minn I think its 52'
Well that rules me out on Minnesota. I could never handle a 52 footer! | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| Does catching alot of big fish make you a good angler? I know a guy that catches a ton of big walleyes ... on Lake Erie in April. What about the muskie guy who spends the majority of his time trolling around on big fish water or hopping in boats with other guys who are experts on the water they are fishing? Is his 52 incher more valid or important than the other guy's small-water 45 incher just because of its length? | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | MuskieFIRST - 2/11/2008 4:57 PM
Does catching alot of big fish make you a good angler?
it would make the guy a good "trophy" angler ...
if you want a "trophy" bass ... farm pond, guererro, fork, toledo bend, rayburn, okachobee ... right?
an 8# bass is not considered a "trophy" | |
| | |
Posts: 1023
| I find it really annoying when I see TV show hosts groan if a fish measures shy of fifty. I don't care where they are fishing. Having said that, muskie fishing is about chasing big fish - it is natural to focus on size. I have been fishing muskies in the Kawartha Lakes (Ontario) region for 3 years. For me casting up a 40+ incher is more exciting than trolling up a 50+ incher. But that's just me. My opinion may change over time. For now, all I can say is that tagging a 40" fish on a topwater or on a figure 8 is pretty darn awesome. I find myself shaking incidental hog largemouths off of the lure as though they were a nuisance - that may offend others. I just love to hear other people's fish stories - big or not! | |
| | |
| How many of those over 45" in the cap city were caught by one angler trolling one body of water for one week? not to diminish those fish at all, because I wouldn't shake them off either but is a 50" caught trolling with a guide, in his boat, with his stuff on his water as much of a trophy as the guy that does it with all his own stuff on a spot nobody showed him? just another angle to think about.... | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | sworrall - 2/10/2008 9:13 AM
I got to thinking about that. Most anglers don't have much opportunity to travel to the Muskie hot spots across the country, and are fishing muskies locally for the most part. Those who live in the meccas of the sport....well, they are pretty lucky. Point is, if you want to catch really big muskies, you need to fish where there are really big muskies.
But what about waters where the fish cannot reach that somewhat sky pie-ish mark of 50" or more?
Dr. Casselman said it best in his Symposium presentation. In a nutshell, he stated that on lakes where the fish reach 45" max, that fish is a true, unquestionable trophy.
Steve I agree with you 100%. You cannot put one number (50) for a trophy on every body of water. I fish muskies a lot for a guy that is married and has two children at home but I don't get to travel to the trophy destinations very often. I have fished a total of 5.5 days in Canada and 2.5 days in Minnesota. I have been fishing muskies for twenty years, the last ten I have been pretty serious about it. 95% of my time on the water is spent here in the Madison area. I haven't caught a 50 inch fish, but you know what nobody has caught a 50 in Madison. A realistic trophy class fish for me is a 45" fish. IMO a 46" fish in Madison is equal to a 50" fish in Minnesota. A 48" fish is equal to a 53-54" and a 50" fish would be equal to a 56-57".
I consider all of my PB's on the chain to be trophy fish.
Monona 47.75x23,
Waubesa 46.5x22
Wingra 44.5xfat.
There aren't very many anglers who have caught bigger fish on those lakes. There are a lot of very good anglers out there, putting a lot more hours into it than I can.
Is a 50" fish a trophy on Mille Lacs or Green Bay? IMO it isn't, not when countless fish are caught each year that are far bigger. If the upper confidence is 55", then the fish needs to be in that ballpark to be a trophy.
And yes if I caught a 41" on the Tiger Cat Flowage, I would consider that a trophy. Although that will never happen because I would never waste a limited traveling opportunity in that body of water. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | bn - 2/11/2008 5:39 PM
How many of those over 45" in the cap city were caught by one angler trolling one body of water for one week? not to diminish those fish at all, because I wouldn't shake them off either but is a 50" caught trolling with a guide, in his boat, with his stuff on his water as much of a trophy as the guy that does it with all his own stuff on a spot nobody showed him? just another angle to think about....
Brad you are thinking of the wrong year. Lambeau referred to 2007 not 2006. The two anglers that he is referring two are Bill B. and Adam O. | |
| | |
Posts: 2089
| Wow, can't believe some of the stuff I've just read. Longtime muskie fishermen feel diminished in some way because people in another state are catching big fish. Unreal. Why????? Jealousy? This will be my 33rd season chasing these fish and each and every one is special. To say that a 50" fish from Mille Lacs or anywhere else for that matter, isn't a trophy, is the absolute craziest thing I've ever read on the internet.Unreal.Man, I hope newcomers pass this thread by. Steve | |
| | |
Location: 31 | "What REALLY is a true trophy? From Spider lake in Oneida County, it's this fish...and deserves as much WOW factor as a 56 off of Eagle." Although I can clearly see where your logic is heading here Steve, the low 40" is never going to get the recognition of a 56" from Eagle... or a 56" from any body water for that matter. That is, at least from the vast majority of muskie fishermen... to quote a famous Clint Eastwood movie line; "deserves got nothing to do with it".
After reading through the well thought out responses... I'm still of the same opinion from my first page post that the body of water cannot rightfully be used as the gauge for what a trophy really is. I maintain that an anglers experience or situation dictates what a true trophy is much more than any given body of water does - no disrespect intended to anyone who feels differently.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Cassleman was speaking from a biologist point of view and not an anglers when he made that statement. That doesn't mean what he said lacks value, it's just not delivered (or received) from an anglers perspective IMHO.
Case in point, you show a perch fishermen a 30" muskie and he's going to think it's a huge trophy... I've caught plenty of mid 40" fish from tail waters below dams and adjacent small lakes, although I certainly appreciated and understood the significance of those catches based on what was available in the system... I never considered them to be a "true trophy". Frankly, I think saying a 41" is of trophy caliber diminishes the value of what a real trophy is. Significant catch yes... trophy no... maybe it's just me?
I honestly think you would have found the majority of the people you polled at your seminar were fairly new to muskie fishing, or just casual muskie anglers - nothing wrong with that! And yes I get perturbed with the internet sniping too, and I'm not trying to diminish the value of a 41" muskie... but I think most old salt muskellunge veterans would not consider having a reproduction made of a 41" from a creek... but might consider a 54" from anywhere else.
To reiterate, to me the defining difference is when you fish a lake without "true trophy potential" you must have a lower expectation level based on what is known to exist elsewhere. It most certainly doesn't diminish the anglers skill or decrease the "significance" of the to catch, it just doesn't make a 41" into a true trophy no matter what Cassleman has said. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Good post Steve... I agree 99%... the -1% is because I think new muskie fishermen should read it so what they're getting themselves into!
Yeah, I'm a little bored tonight... the cold and snow around here is also getting to me. You don't dare go out of house lately without snow shovel  | |
| | |
| amen Steve Jonesi... Boone and crocket and Pope and Young set standards, those organizations could care less where the animal was shot from. To some, a little 6 point buck may be a trophy, but Boone and Crocket will not consider it a trophy... I think it is funny that some have diminished a 50" fish from Mille Lacs or Green Bay.. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | SJ, the point that I am trying to make is that you can't put one number as a trophy for every body of water. Everybody likes to throw 50" out there. Some lakes don't produce 50" fish and some lakes(not very many), like the one that you fish on, put out an extraordinary amount of them.
IMO to be a trophy a fish needs to be at or near the top end of the largest fish in that particular body of water. I believe that Mille Lacs and Green Bay have the potential to produce fish that are as large or larger than anywhere in the world right now. I don't think that a 50" fish falls into that category in those two bodies of water. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't greatly appreciate a 50 from there. I will be fishing on Green Bay a couple of times this year and I do hope that I am lucky enough to get a 50, but this thread is about true trophies and I would have to catch a 53 plus on the Bay to consider it a true trophy. | |
| | |
|
I'm getting a little confused about what this thread is actually about
Are we asking the question "What is a trophy Muskie", or are we asking the question "What is a trophy muskie to each individual, based on lake, tactic, time in history, angler experience etc. etc."
Seriously, what is the point here?
What's next, giving handicaps to lakes so we can compare catches?
Are we next going to ridicule guys who spend all their time on big fish lakes, and make them feel like they have to go to a "small" fish lake and catch a 40"er to be respected?
If you are willing to do whatever it takes to get a 50"er, or bigger than a 40"er doesn't make the trophy standard, that is what seperates "trophy" angers from those that just fish for what is available.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All,
I didn't necessarily ask what YOU consider a trophy. I asked what IS a true trophy considering each body of water, local bodies of water, and out to regions in the Muskie world. I was and am making the point that if someone is consistently catching Muskies that are about as large as they can get on any water body, that person is catching that SYSTEM's 'trophy' potential fish. If that angler doesn't have the time or cash some do to run up to LOTW or MN or (God forbid) NE Ontario, then is he/she to be in despair that he hasn't the 'talent' you have?
Deer hunters understand what I'm trying to say. Trophy potential for a specie of deer is largely dependent on environment and food, subspecies, harvest each season, genetics and overall population. Sound familiar? Yet I clearly understand if I take a low end Pope and Young buck from public hunting grounds in the area of Oneida County in which I hunt, I truly have accomplished as much as someone in Alberta's Whitetail paradise has taking a mid quality B&C. You better believe I am mounting a 145 class whitetail from Oneida county, but would not even consider it if I was hunting Alberta. No one expects the whitetails to be equally impressive between Arkansas and Ontario, why would they? A big buck for one area is a MONSTER elsewhere, and an average deer in yet another location. But if I am consistently taking bucks with as large a rack as can be expected here, am I less of a hunter or have I accomplished less than a fellow shooting 170 or better class animals in paradise? Give me that week in Alberta...and send that fellow to Oneida County for the same week. When folks who regularly hunt the big whitetails in exotic locations visit my house and look at my mounts, they ask, " Did you get those bucks around HERE? Nice animals, man!" Would that same question arise if I had a 43" repro from TigerCat on the wall?
I'm talking to the 'trophy' bar being set at an unattainable point for many because fish of that size do not exist in the waters they are able to fish. Many very accomplished lifetime muskie anglers feel like they are diminished standing in the shadows of anglers here who have fished Mille Lacs for all of a few years. I'm saying a 43" fish from a creek in Virginia is as impressive to me as a 56" fish from Eagle. I'm saying that expectations like we see now in this culture plant unrealistic goals in many minds what Muskies in THEIR waters should look like and be, raising hell with local fisheries managers who have to try to explain the obvious to someone not very willing to hear that truth, and disappointing many who post their personal best here only to have some Schmoo rudely point out that fish is small in comparison to what is caught in their back yard..... And, I guess I'm saying I feel that is a serious problem in this sport. | |
| | |
| True Trophy: every single one my wife catches.
(Steve - I know, I know, not exactly what you're asking, but this is the answer that kept coming to me as I read thru this thread.)
ErieBoy75 | |
| | |
|
I guess I really don't see a problem in our sport.
If people are feeling thier catches are being diminised, who is really to blame?
Muskie fishermen killed fish for years.
Big fish were uncommon because they were being killed, plain and simple.
Catching a 50"er in the old days was a big deal. On any body of water.
Instead of feeling sorry for oneself on past catches, either go out and fish, or feel good about the fact that people have made the effort to improve our fisheries for all to enjoy, old and new anglers. This seems like nothing more than an envy problem to me.
I really don't see a difference in muskie anglers and deer hunters. Most guys I know who muskie fish also deer hunt.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So are you saying it is a somewhat diminished (wasted??) effort to fish where there are no 50" fish? What are the anglers who live in areas like that to do, dismiss the waters where an average fish might be 43" but a really BIG fish is 48 as substandard?
Lakes and rivers where there are no 50" fish are ummmm....not worth a second look?
Should one dismiss the talent and hard work it takes to catch the largest fish available from waters and entire regions where the benchmark fish are simply so rare as to be unattainable?
Are you saying that only a certain size, say 50" or 55" can be used to determine a skill level? That in order to get any attention form one's Muskie angling peers, one has to go where the big fish are? Literally, that's what it takes to catch big fish...be where they are and have a reasonable skill level...so if one leaves an area where a big fish is 45" to fish where a big fish is 55" WHAT DOES THAT PROVE?? Simple...that there's big fish there.
Should we, as the influential information source to a fair share of new Muskie anglers, then intentionally (or unintentionally) announce that ALL muskie waters should put out 50" fish, or they are of no value? And should we press forward announcing that unless any given angler has CAUGHT AND RELEASED a 50 to 55" fish, that any fish he/she has caught to date from home waters where those monster muskies do not exist is somehow not worthy of some WOW factor?
'Wow, can't believe some of the stuff I've just read. Longtime muskie fishermen feel diminished in some way because people in another state are catching big fish. Unreal. Why????? Jealousy? This will be my 33rd season chasing these fish and each and every one is special. To say that a 50" fish from Mille Lacs or anywhere else for that matter, isn't a trophy, is the absolute craziest thing I've ever read on the internet.Unreal.Man, I hope newcomers pass this thread by. Steve'
Ahhh, draw out the emotion, and one get's to the core of this. Steve is saying the same thing I am, really, he has just made the same observation from a different perspective. Saying a 45" fish from MOST places isn't a trophy is just as crazy.
I hope NO ONE passes this thread by, it is directly indicative of what causes this sport to be looked at somewhat 'askance' by so many other sportsmen and women. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JS
So if you see a picture from a Utah reservoir of a 40" fish are you impressed? I sure am. If the guy catches a bunch that size, I'm REALLY impressed. A guy catches a 50 from Mille Lacs; cool, great fish, but a more worthy accomplishment than the Utah angler's?
Envy? I don't get that, not even in the same ballpark of what I'm trying to point out. And where in the world are you getting the rest of that post from......no one is challenging CPR here. Simple fact is, even if CPR is cooking along, there are entire portions of the range of the Muskie where a 50" fish is going to be always a rare commodity. A Really good muskie angler in those areas might not break 48" but for once or twice.....is he to be 'envious' of the MN anglers who have Mille Lacs and Vermilion? Sure,but because of LOCATION, not because he is to be considered not as talented by the anglers in MN, or on Bay of Green Bay, or the St Lawrence, or..... Does the water one chooses to fish HAVE to contain 50, or 53, or 54 inch fish to be 'worthy' of fishing? | |
| | |
Posts: 1188
Location: Iowa | This may not be a muskie but here is a true trophy flathead I caught today...53" long and 52 pounds...man was it cold today...5 degree air temp with a wind chill of -15 degrees...only lasted about 2 hours...fish was released safely to fight another day...
Big Perc
Edited by Big Perc 2/11/2008 9:03 PM
Attachments
----------------
52a.JPG (128KB - 203 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 2089
| Meooooooooow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice fish matt! Steve | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Congrats Perc, that thing had to fight a lot harder than any muskie could.
You are hard core to be noodling out in that weather...LOL. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i'm gonna guess that's a "trophy" .... nice fish! | |
| | |
|
This isn't about what impresses me, but the feelings of anglers whose accomplishments are diminished because of others success.
That is called Jealousy.
It's a personal problem, not a "sport" problem.
If someone can't realize thier own accoplishments, than that is a personal issue.
I know many, many more anglers that realize lakes and areas are all different, and "trophy" status is up to the indivudual, than anglers that feel slighted because of the success of others.
I never implied I'm not impressed by the catches of others.
I've also never implied I care about what other feel about my catches.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'This isn't about what impresses me, but the feelings of anglers whose accomplishments are diminished because of others success.
That is called Jealousy.'
Not if the very 'created' atmosphere we breath propagates dismissal of real and impressive accomplishment because of geography, and as a result diminish the true values of hundreds of managed Muskie fisheries across the range of the Muskie..Then it's a 'sport' problem. There are waters in the East and West not yet come into their own, in the South that have no chance to get there because of a number of issues, in the South West that are 'new' hybrid fisheries; all have some very good fishermen and women putting some impressive fish (for that water) in the net. Lots of other examples, just look around. You will even find a few in MN and Ontario, not all waters in those areas kick out big fish.
As another point:
It wasn't all that long ago a select few were catching muskies in the 45" range from Mille Lacs, and it seemed almost no one else even cared the muskies were there. Vermilion is also a 'new' fishery...should we dismiss those waters across the country on the way to that possible stature just because they are not yet there? Wouldn't attention to those waters by the posters in this thread and the strong conservation ethic brought with that attention be important? Would that not possibly have been the catalyst to get something done on Bay of Green Bay BEFORE we reached the point we have arrived to? But you see, the multiple 45" fish a few anglers were boating weren't 'impressive' enough.......
The rest fits my post above, and if you read more carefully, I'm not pointing to those who might look diminished to the rest of us as much as I might those who find it uplifting to diminish......again, you will find we are saying much the same thing from a different perspective.
I'd say that flathead is a PIG. | |
| | |
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Great cat but assuming that was taken from the Des Moines river, its a nice fish but not throphy standerds that that river is capable of. I think this is what Steves trying to get everyone to see.
I have friends that live on the Des Moines in the summer and boat many fish in the 50-60 even a few 70# class fish I have heard tales and belive them of fish pulling them upstream during flood stage, while this 52 pound fish to me or anyone reading this is a true trophy the river system does have much larger fish in it and in all honesty this is more middle to upper mid sized fish for this system.
Now put that fish in the upper end of the MN river and you'll be the talk of the town for sure.
Again not taking away form his great catch just making a point. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: WI | I just want to catch any muskie I can. I broke the 50" mark last September and to me that was definately a trophy fish! But I fish a tiny lake with muskies in it and was pretty happy to catch even a 34.5 in it last season. I know they don't get huge in that lake, but I'm going to keep going back just to see...settle my own curiosity on how big of a fish I can pull out of it.
I personally think the trophy label is something personal, it's a personal goal whether it's your PB, a state record, or whatever. To compare against other fish, other waters, etc is pretty unfair and a dishonor to the fish itself.
I'll stick with 50 inches as my definition of a trophy, but catching one is not the focal point of my season, it's the overall experience. | |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| sworrall - 2/11/2008 8:38 PM
I didn't necessarily ask what YOU consider a trophy. I asked what IS a true trophy
I am unable to answer this question simply because of the statement quoted above. I thought I knew what the word "is" meant, but thanks to a fellow born in Hope, Arkansas I am still searching for the meaning of that word.
Edited by ulbian 2/12/2008 1:22 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I agree with steve that the body of water does mean something. A lake not known for big fish and someone gets a 45 on it has a right to call it a trophy from that lake. I think a point missed here is that a trophy does not have to be huge to be considered a trophy. A fish caught by someone that would have a special meaning to them could be considerd a trophy regardless of size. My dad for example only got to muskie fish with me several times. His best a is a 40. Because it was my dad and his best to me and him that is a trophy fish. Its not a trophy to the angler that thinks it has to be 5o inches to be considerd one. I guess its in the the eye of the angler and what they consider a trophy. I ts like deer hunting in some ways. A young man shoots his first buck. A nice 6 pointer. To that young man that deer is a trophy and it should be. I certainly would not tell him otherwise.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I don't think a 41 incher is every a trophy...no matter where it came from.
Anything over 45 is a nice fish.
But a trophy is a "TROPHY"...which means it is BIG...not NICE...45 is nice, 50+ is a trophy, anything over 53 is a really really nice trophy.
| |
| | |
|
Are we talking about anglers personally feeling like their catches are being diminished by the big fish of others, or about other anglers making them feel that way?
There is a difference there.
In every sport you have ego monsters who will try to make themselves look better than others with their accomplishments.
You're also going to have guys that try to minimize the accomplishments of others by saying "everbody catches a 50"er on Mille Lacs", etc.
If these things are indeed problems, what is the proposed solution?
JS
| |
| | |
| Mike, how many or what percentage of those fish were over 50"?
20 fish out of 1080 by Cap City were 50"+
just under 2% of all fish caught.
i assume that some of the MN chapters might have a slightly higher percentage based on local waters that hold bigger fish (the Madison Chain has never produced a confirmed 50" fish), but i'd be surprised if any group of people maintains an average of much over 2% of fish caught being over 50".
i know that there were a number of people at our awards ceremony last night who were very very happy to tell the story of their 45" trophy. Dawn's 45"er drew a lot of oohs and ahhs from people who've caught many fish over 50"...it's not always just the length of the fish, but where it was caught, whether it's a personal accomplishment and the circumstances involved.
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | I'm still trying to define what this thread is really about too I guess. It seems to have drifted more into an anglers accomplishments on a given body of water than what is really a true trophy on any given body of water. I still say a true trophy is more of a personal thing like you say Mike "whether it's a personal accomplishment and the circumstances involved" than a lake thing and just because a fish can only reach a max of 41" still doesn't make it a trophy... on any lake. After all what if you could walk across the street and have a legitimate shot at a 50"... is the 41" still considered a trophy then?
The fact that some people catch 50-70 50+" in northeast Ontario may not impress some people here as much as a guy catching 10-15 48" in northern Wisconsin. However, it doesn't diminish the fact that every one of those northeaster's are trophies in the purest sense of the word even though they can get 58+". This is because muskie fishermen have established the bar at 48-50"... and it's not my standard.
If the guy fishing only on the 41" lake wants to catch a true trophy he's going to need to switch lakes, or be known as a "numbers guy". Frankly if a guy catches 20 of those 41" fish from that small fish system... it's very impressive. Or... this thread should probably be morphed into an anglers accomplishments on a given body of water.
Using the same 41" example... I think most would considered it to be false advertising if you said "true trophy muskie fishing" in an ad promoting the 41" maximum size lake, and that's my main point. Most old salts would certainly have a lowered expectation level on that lake.
I suppose I would agree that a trophy could be defined more by state or region like we have with the state or provincial records. Honestly, there seems to be some animosity present here when someone is able to take a shortcut to the top and get a 56 in his first year or two among muskie fishermen so to speak... they didn't pay their dues or something.
I say who cares.. and good for them, it certainly won't effect me one way or the other and absolutely does not diminish my 25+ years of effort one bit... "that's muskie fishing". | |
| | |
| I'm not sure what the real question or topic of this thread is either ....ok we probably all agree, to the 12 yr old that catches his 1st musky at 38" that is a "trophy" to him. Heck my first 40" probably was to me, but the word trophy is being using lots of ways in this thread. I think the trophy bar at a minimum is 48"...why? just because a 4 foot fish is great. Are Bytors 45-47 inch fish trophies to him, sure, but I would say by the majority of the musky world no, they are not.
Just because not many 47"ers are caught on the mad chain does not make that a trophy imo. I've caught some that big on the chain and they are big, nice fish but a "trophy"? no, not to me.
I would also agree that if a guy is only fishing a lake where the big fish in it are 45" and he's good at catching them that big, he is a good angler and should feel proud but he should try his skills on big fish waters once in a while and see how he does...in every sport there are bench marks, pinnacles, levels to attain.
Trophy will always mean something different to each one of us but as a whole, I don't think it's all that bad to have that mark be 48 or 50"? Are some of us a bit too sensitive as to what others think about us? probably so... | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you got a 12 year old nellie? ... my 13 year old laughs at the "feel-good" trophies they give out in wrestling for 4th place in a 4-man round robin. he'd prefer to win the dam thing ... lol | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'After all what if you could walk across the street and have a legitimate shot at a 50"... is the 41" still considered a trophy then'
The question is what IS a trophy on the lake where the muskie is very big at 41". The extension of that question is, should we as a group set expectations of reality to the point that it's simply expected that 41" lake SHOULD provide 50" fish and that it's basically not worth fishing if it doesn't? What if we arrive 'there'..if you were a fisheries manager on that water and it was obvious that that water wasn't going to be fished for muskies much anymore because it will never produce a 50 pound fish and the public turns up it's collective nose at 20# muskies, what would you think about that, and how would you manage that lake and appropriate the limited funds available into the future? And what if across that street, and in fact across that region, a big fish is simply mid 40" class? And, and... you get my point.
'Honestly, there seems to be some animosity present here when someone is able to take a shortcut to the top and get a 56 in his first year or two among muskie fishermen so to speak... they didn't pay their dues or something'
No animosity from this quarter; anyone who can travel to the meccas should, and catching a big fish there should be exactly what it is... exciting and noteworthy. But if bn catches a 47 on his favorite Madison water, that's VERY noteworthy too; and something to watch. What happens when the Mad Chain or any water in transition reaches full potential, and 50s are more common? Will the request be set THEN to protect those fish, or are we watching it now and looking to the future? Remember, much of the management on any water is a result of what the public 'wants'.
And I find it noteworthy several folks here are comparing the sport's top big fish expectations to a competition; is it, really? I know it is when I'm competing in League or a tournament, but my expectations are not set at 50" most times then either. But when I'm not competing, should I only be 'happy' if I'm fishing lakes with 50" plus potential? Is the 'bar' set there to indicate who 'won' or is it set there to indicate what the top potential of the fish are in some areas of the Muskie's Range? Think about it, I'm saying that for quite a few of us it IS a daily competition with everyone and no one, or there wouldn't be the discussions about this fellow or that fellow not paying dues, or shortcutting, or whatever. And at least a small portion of this diatribe from my frozen noggin is to point out that if this is a competition in many's mind, that those folks need to remember that there IS a 'handicap' that has to be extended to those who are NOT fishing the best waters in the world everyday. Some of those folks could probably hit YOUR pitch clean out of the park on any given day.
| |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | How about this...
If we took Casselman's research a step further and made age the determining factor would that be a simple solution? No I'm not condoning that all fish be harvested to collect a cleithrum bone!
Could we as anglers accept a "trophy" based on the age of the fish?
Could we as anglers then accept that a 43" 18 year old fish is more of an accomplishment than the 12 year old 52" fish?
Edited by Will Schultz 2/12/2008 8:56 AM
| |
| | |
| I'm gonna say no to pretty much all those questions Will. Is a 8 yr old buck whose rack is not nearly what it was 4 yrs prior a bigger accomplishment than that same buck at 4.5 yrs old with a monstrous rack and body to go with it?
Age in musky fishing I don't think will ever be looked at as the standard for what a trophy is....in musky fishing, like it or not it's all about size!!!!
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | my business partner is a trophy whitetail hunter ... he runs land in northwestern minnesota and in northern indiana. he has 4 children who hunt with him. the kids know how an old doe can protect a herd and the importance to take them out ... they also know the importance of letting young bucks go ... they know the definition of a true trophy and what it takes to let them grow so that they can become one.
so, no ... i think a small 6 point taken by a young hunter could be a lesson of what not to do as a hunter or you could just placate him and make him feel good.
kids that learn sports need to learn too .... little johny with the right instruction can understand the importance of any sport and the difference between playing it and excelling at it at the highest level.
i've got 4 kids ... know a little about parenting. they are capable of more than many give them credit for ...
Edited by jonnysled 2/12/2008 9:19 AM
| |
| | |
| What is wrong with an action lake?
You cannot pick up a single musky magazine w/o reading about the effects of delayed mortality. Statistics differ, but the fact remain, no matter how careful and stress free you try to make it for the fish, delayed mortality cannot be ignored.
Having said that, delayed mortality will take a toll w/o the need of an active harvest. I will not tell anyone to take food of their table if that is what they are after, but condoning the killing of fish to increase size in light of the growth of the sport is a bit short sided.
All it takes is one "trophy" out of these lakes and pressure increases.
| |
| | |
| "anyone who can travel to the meccas should, and catching a big fish there should be exactly what it is... "
It appears that most feel you can make a trip to Mille Lacs, throw on a DCG, make a couple casts and catch 50"er's like panfish.. I'd love to hear some of the guys speak up about the long trip to a broken dream. Make a trip all the way over to Mille Lacs to have 20-25 mph winds all week. How about this fall, some big fish where caught, but you had to work your butt off to get one bite.. Its not that simple to consistantly put 50" fish in the boat and only a handful of anglers are doing it.. To say that catching a 41" fish on smaller waters is the same as catching a 50" fish on Mille Lacs or GB is 100% wrong. Those 41" fish are less pressured and probably pretty stupid, the 50" fish on Mille Lacs are highly pressured and you need to know what you are doing to catch them. Kinda like saying a 170 southern Michigan buck is the same as a 8 point basket rack northern WI buck. Maybe the hunters are the sameskill level, but one is a trophy and other is not... | |
| | |
Location: 31 | I think that's a great idea Will, you should start fishing for the old ones... I'll stick with those long skinny young ones:) Seriously, if that's the benchmark then Tom Gelb really kicked our butts this past year with his 30-year-old 48 pounder eh'.
I got it Steve and understand what you're trying to say. I guess I'd recommend it be managed as a put and take fishery so long as the demand is there. Another consideration would be to redirect those stocking efforts into other nearby systems that can produce the larger fish that most muskie addicts seek. Some lakes and areas will never be able to produce a four footer, but that doesn't mean they can't be managed properly.
Hey, don't get the wrong idea about me here because I enjoy catching all types of fish just for the fun of it, and they don't all have to be 50" before I'm satisfied. There's something about standing on the rocks below a da m muskie fishing at 4 a.m. that I really enjoy, spray your face (and no, not the kind with a capital S), water whipping past... when bang, suddenly your bowed up on a scrappy 34" right at your feet... any size will do. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
What if a big buck for the area in which that young person is hunting is a 2.5 year old 6 because of whatever factors press that? You make one of my points for me, it's nice to have the area and herd for a QDM, but the VAST majority of the deer hunters out there have to scratch out a good hunting experience on public land. If that young hunter passes that 6 out there, he may not see another for a very long time. Should expectations be equal, or should expectations match reality? Should folks tell the youngster who harvested a 15" 8 off public land he got a NICE buck for that area or say, well, if you were hunting the QDM WE hunt that would be a dink...and if that youngster learns the inside stuff about whitetails and is able to scout heavily pressured land and find the sweet spot no one else yet has found and manages to find the biggest bucks available there on average, is that youngster not now a 'master' hunter? No, the bucks upper average won't make the book, but transfer that talent to Alberta, adapt to that situation, and let's see what happens.
I submit that the 'highest level' in hunting and fishing can be attained anywhere one fishes or hunts, on each waterbody or woodlot or field, and that 'success' might be measured by the ability to do so, and do so consistently. That a 44" fish from Spider should be understood by that youngster as one of the largest fish in the lake and respect should be mutual, so to speak. And I submit that a culture that insists one has 'lost' or at the least 'not yet won' unless one is able to GET to the areas where there ARE pinnacle animals or fish diminishes not only the sport, but the very backbone of what supports the sport locally. But that's my opinion this morning...
| |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Jerry Newman - 2/12/2008 10:25 AM
I think that's a great idea Will, you should start fishing for the old ones... I'll stick with those long skinny young ones:) Seriously, if that's the benchmark then Tom Gelb really kicked our butts this past year with his 30-year-old 48 pounder eh'.
Yes, I would say he kicked everyones butt this year including the over 50# fish that I know about. No, not because the fish was older but because that fish was indeed a special for for his area and not one of a handful caught that size each year.
Hey wait... I'm the one that fishes for the long skinny young ones not you. | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| I think what Steve is getting at is pretty simple. You are a product of the waters you fish. Trying to establish some "standard" of what is or isn't a trophy fish, a great catch, worthy of calling an accomplishment, etc. without taking into account the characteristics of the system which it was taken from is difficult if not impossible.
What IS a trophy?
4 pages of commentary on the subject leads me to believe that nobody knows that answer. It's purely subjective, based on where you caught it. Is it lengh, age, or weight? Did you catch it casting, or trolling, and was it your boat? Did you pick the lure or the spot? Which way was the wind blowing?
All of that would be fine, if it weren't for a few things:
1. We are often creating unrealistic expectations for many of our fisheries, and blaming the DNR for not doing their jobs. As Steve mentioned, this leaves the "numbers lakes" in a precarious position -- if nobody is going to fish them for muskies because you can't catch a 50" there, what's the incentive to manage them for muskies?
2. We are perpetuating this mindset that if you're not catching 50" fish, you just aren't any good at fishing, you may as well not post your pictures or talk about your catch. What is that doing for our sport? The people just starting out, what sort of expectations are they walking around with? And when they go out thinking big muskies are going to find their way to the net regularly, and that doesn't happen, then what?
I found my way into muskie fishing and these websites about 4 years ago, and like many, I saw the same things as everyone else -- pictures upon pictures of big muskies, 50" here, 53" there, magazines, TV shows, more pictures, more stories... "I wanna catch one of those!" My first time muskie fishing I didn't catch a muskie. My second time muskie fishing I caught a 30"er. Some dozen guide trips my first season, and nothing to show for it but a handful of fish under 40"... "What am I doing wrong??!" I got frustrated, MAD, I remember driving home after fishless day #12 or so cursing everything under the sun. It got to the point where it wasn't even fun anymore, too much pressure to catch fish, when clearly everyone else was catching 50"ers every other day...
My point here is that the picture we paint is NOT reality. I learned that the hard way, and my unrealistic expectations of what muskie fishing is like in most places nearly drove me right out of the sport. Luckily, I realized that these stupid things are NOT easy to catch. Some guys fish their whole lives and never see a 50" fish. I'll say it again, you are a product of the waters that you fish. Understanding those ecosystems, and what the profile of those fisheries is, will paint a much more accurate picture of what size or qualtity of fish would be a measure of success.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | WOW, lots of good views here. I believe the Trophy term is in the eye of the person who shoots it or catches it. For deer I have a tract of land that can produce some huge deer. MY kids (Mike-15 and Krystina-18) have not shot a deer with a rack because they know what is possible. They both have had chances at bucks up to small 8's. My son was going to shoot an 8 last year but he didn't have a good shot. Atta boy for not shooting. My daughter will not shoot a small buck because she wantas a big one. If we shoot in our small woods it will effect all of us. So we all trophy hunt by choice. Food is doe's. That takes place on public land where they would shoot a small 8 or 6-pointer because it is harder to get a good buck there. Where you hunt makes a differance. Trophy is where you hunt.
Now for fishing I have to believe a Trophy is also where you fish. Mad town, Pewaukee, Okauchee have good fish but a 48-incher is big and I consider a Trophy out of these lakes. A 50 or bigger and you stepped into the higher class of that was very cool. I only hope to do that again some time.
Now the Big Pond. That can't be conpared with other metro lakes. I know it gets hammered. I am there for a week every year and we pound it hard. We also catch 50's up to 53-inches in that week and have chances at bigger and more over 50-inches. This lake is huge and can have ton of boats hammering it. Tough fishing? Hell ya, wind, bugs, other anglers, big baits all day and night kick your ass. BUT to say it is harder to catch TROPHYS is not true. I fish some tough waters, numbers waters with a small chance to stick a fiddy. I believe a TROPHY is a four footer around here and on the big fish waters like THE POND, THE V, out East, LOTW, etc it is 53 or more.
Anyway you look at it, the chances to catch a big fish need to come into play. Just like deer hunting. Some land is just hard to hunt and get bucks, you better shoot what you can or the other guys will. Other land if you wait it out and keep it peacefull you might get a TROPHY of a lifetime.
True Trophy to me is a mid fiftys. Is that possible down here in SouthEastern Wisconsin? I sure hope so because thats my True Trophy of a lifetime around here.
Now my True Trophy of a lifetime was a 57 x 27 that went over 50lbs and two days earler I got a 53 x 26.5 that pushed 50lbs. That will be hard for me to break unless I spend lots of time on big fish waters in the Fall.
Big fish waters = Trophy fish to most
Average fish waters = Trophy fish to the average muskie fishermen
To say that a nice fat 48 or 49-inch fish from average waters is NOT a TROPHY is just crazy. I can't relate to that being a guide and seeing what average big fish do to the average fishermen.
If your one of the few (will not mention names) and say all fish under 50 are not Trophys your in the upper 10% of the muskie world I believe. I agree with you as far as a TRUE TROPHY but disagree when it comes to the average joe catching a metro fish and seeing it as a TROPHY FISH.
It's all in where you fish and how much you get to fish. That is the most important variable when it comes to "What is a TRUE Trophy Muskie". | |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | The 47-incher out of Mad Town Lakes is a TROPHY. A bunch of low 50's in MN is great but not a TRUE TROPHY in my eyes because of the waters fished. Now if they were in the mid fiftys thats another story.
It's all in where you fish and the time you get to fish on what waters that makes TROPHY fish to me.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I don't really think the word trophy should have different standards on different lakes..
If you are fishing a lake that can't put out a fish above 48", then I just don't feel the lake is trophy caliber. Can you go out there, catch fish, and have a great time? Sure, but that doesn't mean you start giving out trophy medals, i.m.o.
On the same token, I definetely don't agree with raising the bar to mid 50's. You mentioned LOTW Mike, while many guys go out there and catch 10-15 fish per week, a 50" fish is still a hell of an accomplishmnet out there, raising that bar to 53" is definetely extreme in my book. I sometimes feel that some project when you launch your boat on Vermilion and Mille Lacs that 50" fish literally start jumping in the boat. While there are some great success stories from guys on this board and guides, there are still plenty of people who go out there and get their tails handed to them. It is not the easy accomplishment that it might appear to be... | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | Well a trophy to me is the next fish! We don't know how long we are going to be here and we could be gone at any moment, so to me a trophy muskie is going to be the next one I catch I am not doing this to impress anyone, Yes I would love to catch a "50", but I am happy just to catch one. There are people in this world who will never experince the thrill of a boatside strike after 12 hours of casting!!
I personally thank God for this great sport, and am happy to share it with as many people as possible, I think we all need to step back and just look what we have become: does not catching big fish all the time make you any less of an angler??? I would much rather get in the boat with someone who puts fish in the boat every time out rather than someone who puts one in every 10th time out!
just my 2 cents take it or leave it your choice
tony
Edited by floydss 2/12/2008 11:42 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2068
| 60 Lbs + .....and I am killin every one I catch! | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Musky Brian - 2/12/2008 10:53 AM
I don't really think the word trophy should have different standards on different lakes..
If you are fishing a lake that can't put out a fish above 48", then I just don't feel the lake is trophy caliber. Can you go out there, catch fish, and have a great time? Sure, but that doesn't mean you start giving out trophy medals, i.m.o.
On the same token, I definetely don't agree with raising the bar to mid 50's. You mentioned LOTW Mike, while many guys go out there and catch 10-15 fish per week, a 50" fish is still a hell of an accomplishmnet out there, raising that bar to 53" is definetely extreme in my book. I sometimes feel that some project when you launch your boat on Vermilion and Mille Lacs that 50" fish literally start jumping in the boat. While there are some great success stories from guys on this board and guides, there are still plenty of people who go out there and get their tails handed to them. It is not the easy accomplishment that it might appear to be...
Bingo.
| |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | Why do we have to all agree on how "Trophy" is defined? Are we that insecure in ourselves that we can't decide for ourself what is a trophy and what is not? I certainly don't need someone else to tell me if the fish I caught was a trophy or not.
Seriously, if we want to have an intelligent thread about trophies (I suspect you are more interested in trophy management and that is a different discussion) on a continental level, there is no way to gain a consensus. You would have to remove the emotion and personal opinions from the conversation and strictly look at the numbers to decide what a trophy is. Maybe it is the largest 10% of all of the muskies ever caught that are trophies. Maybe it is something else. The bottom line is there will never be a trophy designation that everyone from across the musky world will agree on.
It appears that you are searching for ways to discuss musky management and that can only be effectively communicated and delivered at the local level and not on a non-specific continental level. Study the lake and find out what the size range of fish is on that lake and manage that lake for those fish if it is managed for muskies. You can't manage every lake as a trophy musky lake just as you can't manage every lake as a walleye lake. Some just aren't meant to be.
When some people talk about lakes having a maximum size musky of 40 inches, I say that is not a trophy lake and doesn't have trophy fish. I would still fish that lake by choice and be fully aware that I am not going to catch a 50 incher out of it and believe it or not I will still have fun if I catch a 36 incher. Are we that euphorian to believe that everyone should have a realistic shot at a trophy regardless of the water they choose to fish? What if I don't live in an area that has large antlered deer? Should I be contacting the Boone & Crockett club to see if there is any way that for my area they can consider a 120 inch buck a trophy?
I will continue to be happy just to get out and fish, regardless of what lake I am on or if I have a legitimate shot at a fifty.
To be facetious, what if I catch a musky on light tackle? Or what if I catch a musky on a fly? What next, do we look at what lures were used and have an individual handicap rating like in golf but use income, vacation time, and days on the water as our score? | |
| | |
Posts: 581
| Why must we try to figure this all out again? I understand that we are trying to recognize angling accomplishments for what they truly are....(sure, catching a 41" from the Tiger Cat is a fine accomplishment). But why? Are we trying to make newcoming anglers who fish action waters feel better about themselves? Are we trying to make non-MN anglers and guides feel better about themselves and their sub-50" catches? What's the dire consequence to the sport if some anglers are not getting the "recognition" and personal accolades they so deserve?
Fact is, "trophy" is purely subjective. And in my opinion, it should be. There is no objective measure to what is a "trophy".
Fishing for and catching muskies should be fun. Period. Energy should be focused on the pure enjoyment of muskie fishing, rather than worrying about who is better than who, and trying to figure out whether a 41” fish from the Tiger Cat Flowage is “better than", or "equal to" a 47” fish from the Madison Chain, or is “better than" or "equal to" a 50” fish from Mille Lacs, or whatever. Frankly, I think figuring out the answers to those questions is kind of an exercise in futility. But that's just me. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I submit that the 'highest level' in hunting and fishing can be attained anywhere one fishes or hunts, on each waterbody or woodlot or field, and that 'success' might be measured by the ability to do so, and do so consistently. That a 44" fish from Spider should be understood by that youngster (or anyone) as one of the largest fish in the lake and respect should be mutual, so to speak.
And I submit that a culture that insists one has 'lost' or at the least 'not yet won' unless one is able to GET to the areas where there ARE pinnacle animals or fish diminishes not only the sport, but the very backbone of what supports the sport locally. But that's my opinion this morning...
'Are we that euphorian to believe that everyone should have a realistic shot at a trophy regardless of the water they choose to fish? What if I don't live in an area that has large antlered deer? Should I be contacting the Boone & Crockett club to see if there is any way that for my area they can consider a 120 inch buck a trophy?'
Is there a difference between 'records' like B&C and P&Y and the definition of 'trophy'? Are there not many 'trophy' bucks hanging in living rooms across the country that are not B&C?
'It appears that you are searching for ways to discuss musky management and that can only be effectively communicated and delivered at the local level and not on a non-specific continental level.'
Actually, no, I am indicating the inevitable 'unreasonable expectations' fallout that muskie fisheries management folks have to deal with because of our 'standards'. it's a component of the problem, not the problem itself.
'You can't manage every lake as a trophy musky lake just as you can't manage every lake as a walleye lake. Some just aren't meant to be.'
Yes, exactly my point. And some 'natural' muskie lakes will never kick out 50" fish no matter what, and are not stocked at all.
Are there not many Rick Lax 'trophies' hanging on walls around the country that are no where NEAR a record fish? Is the trophy status on Bay of Green Bay in flux right now, perhaps relegating a true 50" fish there to 'not-even-legal- and -as-a-result-not-impressive-to- many status? Would that water then set the bar for the rest of the Muskie range an additional couple inches higher? That is a large part of the problem, IMHO, a 50" fish should be considered a darned big fish anywhere. A 48" fish is pretty impressive to MOST muskie anglers. I remember clearly the debate that the word should not be defined by fish less than 48". Now could it be creeping up to it 52"? Next possibly even more if a couple...COUPLE waters peak at 56 to 58"?
And yes, I DO feel kudos are in order for an angler who consistently catches a 47" upper average where the peak is 47". WHO will define what a trophy is for that water, and that angler?
And if it isn't a trophy to 'us', will we turn away and mumble something like 'Well, come here and fish, and I'll show you a real big muskie..." because some pretty well known Muskie anglers do exactly that. Tell me it doesn't happen, right here on this board nearly every week of the open water season. And tell me some folks don't express disdain for us telling a 2 year muskie angling veteran a 40" Eastern State Stream fish or an Oneida County 47" fish is a 'beauty'.
Really, Addict said it pretty well.
'To be facetious, what if I catch a musky on light tackle? Or what if I catch a musky on a fly? What next, do we look at what lures were used and have an individual handicap rating like in golf but use income, vacation time, and days on the water as our score?'
'We' already are.....
Matt, define 'feel better about'. I'm not talking about those anglers who already know they have beaten the system on the water they fish, I'm talking about the general publics perception. I'm out in the fishing public alot, and hear what new and perspective muskie anglers, and some with a couple years under their belt think about this subject. I'm not saying we need to mollycoddle those folks, I'm asking what reality will offer them for the most part.
| |
| | |
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | I think the issue is the difference between what is a trophy fish and what is a big accomplishment - there is a difference. To me catching a 50" fish out of the Madison chain would be a bigger accomplishment than pulling a 54" out of Mille Lacs.
I just pulled the Muskies Inc. data for Mille Lacs and it shows 439 muskies registered by MI members with 18% of those being 50+ inches long. The Madison chain had 720 muskies with none 50” or above. A 50" in Madison is just harder to come by.
Now if I had to pick a replica for the wall – a 50” from the Madison Chain or a 54” from Mille Lacs….the MN fish is on the wall.
Shane
Edited by ShaneW 2/12/2008 5:26 PM
| |
| | |
| And tell me some folks don't express disdain for us telling a 2 year muskie angling veteran a 40" Eastern State Stream fish or an Oneida County 47" fish is a 'beauty'.
and who cares if they're disdainful? not me. they're irrelevant, a small minority of self-absorbed people who have to re-assure themselves every day by comparing themselves in some favorable way to others. the vast majority of US are just people who enjoy sharing each others' fun catching fish without all the ego.
i'll continue to say "that's a beauty" to anyone and everyone who's willing to share the picture of their catch. i like seeing fish pics: big fish, small fish, trophy fish. i couldn't give a #*^@ what people think about it if i congratulate someone on catching a fish that wouldn't make their "book". those who would look down their noses at it are into this for all the wrong reasons. so that person doesn't recognize a "smaller" fish from a smaller lake as a trophy? so what? the sport's as popular as ever, and growing because people are getting out and enjoying catching those same "smaller" fish. as long as it's on my watch, we'll help them to celebrate those catches here on MuskieFirst.
it's true that catching one of the biggest fish in a lake (even if that isn't all that big) is a signal accomplishment and should be celebrated. it's also true that people should recognize and feel fine in celebrating the capability of their local waters without unrealistic comparison to waters that can produce bigger fish.
at the same time, it's just fine to recognize that across the muskies' range there is a point at which a fish moves from "nice" and becomes something truly special, becomes a trophy by anyone's definition. the really cool thing about doing so is that it helps us to better appreciate the fact that the opportunities to catch truly trophy sized fish are increasing every year.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Fishing license sales have fallen every year for a long time.
Most Muskie anglers began in the sport fishing other species.
Many join the sport of Muskie angling for the challenge. Some for the social aspects. Some for both.
Would it not be a more positive thing to see that challenge and the goals one might set better defined---- closer to the reality most will encounter? After all, attaining a goal in this sport or any other makes the challenge worth the effort. Half the fun is sharing the news for many of us. If one doesn't even realize when one HAS accomplished a difficult task......
| |
| | |
Posts: 83
| To me, how the fish was caught enters into it. If I caught a fish trolling in somone else's boat, it wouldn't mean near as much as if I was casting, or flyfishing for it. | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | if there was a set "trophy" size then i think the number of the fish would decline,, the new people that come in would keep the "trophy" fish more because they hit that magic number! I belive one should set there own goals and not worry about what the other guy is doing. Granted there is some very big fish being caught now days and I give respect to those who are catching them. For me personally I will just be happy to catch another one. A trophy fish to me in Canada is the sixth legal of the day! A trophy in U.S. is the forth legal of the day! If there happens to be a 48-50 in there that is a bonus. When I first started muskie fishing the bar was set at 50. so if one had to define a trophy i would say 50
my vote count it twice if you want
tony knuteson | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 2/12/2008 9:39 AM
Sled,
What if a big buck for the area in which that young person is hunting is a 2.5 year old 6 because of whatever factors press that? You make one of my points for me, it's nice to have the area and herd for a QDM, but the VAST majority of the deer hunters out there have to scratch out a good hunting experience on public land. If that young hunter passes that 6 out there, he may not see another for a very long time. Should expectations be equal, or should expectations match reality? Should folks tell the youngster who harvested a 15" 8 off public land he got a NICE buck for that area or say, well, if you were hunting the QDM WE hunt that would be a dink...and if that youngster learns the inside stuff about whitetails and is able to scout heavily pressured land and find the sweet spot no one else yet has found and manages to find the biggest bucks available there on average, is that youngster not now a 'master' hunter? No, the bucks upper average won't make the book, but transfer that talent to Alberta, adapt to that situation, and let's see what happens.
I submit that the 'highest level' in hunting and fishing can be attained anywhere one fishes or hunts, on each waterbody or woodlot or field, and that 'success' might be measured by the ability to do so, and do so consistently. That a 44" fish from Spider should be understood by that youngster as one of the largest fish in the lake and respect should be mutual, so to speak. And I submit that a culture that insists one has 'lost' or at the least 'not yet won' unless one is able to GET to the areas where there ARE pinnacle animals or fish diminishes not only the sport, but the very backbone of what supports the sport locally. But that's my opinion this morning...
sorry so late in response ... been on the road. my answer of-course outside of genetic limitations is that there are two ways to hunt and fish ... to manage harvest and selection based on establishing a potential for trophies or taking the opportunistic harvest mentality and pretending it's alright. a bunch of dads gratifying a bunch of kids on the harvest for little johny can destroy a herd or a lake pretty quick. little johny is capable of learning to leave a yearling or a two year old to walk past him ... my friend john's son told me this year that he didn't take a deer ... could have but chose to do the right thing. i'll try to post his buck that he took last year ... the kid learned the right way and will be a strong asset for the whitetail hunting of the future .... i say that we can choose to do the right thing to promote and protect true trophy herds and fisheries and call foul to even the little johny's of the world if we choose to do the right thing. a father promoting the shooting of small horns is hurting the herd ... same as the father that keeps the first trophy for reasons like not wanting to hurt little johny's feelings. if i raised my kids to make sure i didn't hurt their feelings i couldn't imagine what i'd have on my hands ... oh, wait ... yes i can ... i'd have a spoiled punk kid like so many are becoming ... fat on mcdonalds and no exercise and not willing to work because they are "entitled" to something better.
if more are taught to pass on the 6 ... over generations they would solve their own problem. problem is ... it's a selfish hunter today vs. what it was generations ago ... and the same goes with fishing in some areas. the results show the effect which comes from the cause ... you might have to read that three times ... it even confused me. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | as said b4, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thats about all that has to be said about it. A trophy muskie is different to everyone. I know of a guy that had a 10 inch perch mounted. It was a trophy to him as it netted him $25,000. You going to tel him thats not a trophy?
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You didn't answer a single question I asked.
I disagree with the 'selfish hunter' statement. I bet overall hunting ethics are not alot different now than 25 years ago. This year I hunted 600 yards from a young man (mebbe 16) who hiked in a 45 minute walk in the dark each morning from the other direction who passed as many as I did the first four days of season this year. Great kid, good hunter, and had realistic expectations. That, Sled, to me is about right.
I'm talking about giving enough real and accurate information to our kids, and for that matter, ANY new angler or sportsman so they can truly understand what they have locally and understand and APPRECIATE what a big fish/squirrel/rabbit/grouse/muskie in that area really is.
How is that different than your post?
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | The definition of Trophy from dictionary.com: A momento, as of one's personal achievements.
A trophy is completely personal, and everyone has there own opinion, there will clearly be no right or wrong answer to the posed question. To me a trophy is a 50 incher, and I'll do what I need to do to try and get another one. Nothing wrong with the ones short of that mark, they are great and I'll gladly catch them or congradulate everyone for there catches, but to me the mark to shoot for is a 50 incher.
Case in point, I put my boss from Cousin's Subs on his first ever fish, a 32 incher. He was afraid to hold it, saying it was the biggest fish he's ever had in front of him. I was very happy for him, but I said it was a dink, although the place we got the fish out of isnt known to produce big fish, a 32 incher on that lake is pretty typical, a 40 is getting to the upper reaches of size. He asks me, so that thing is a dink? I said yep, for this lake its pretty good, but I'll take you other places and look for bigger ones. Was he dissapointed because I called it a dink? No. Did he appreciate it, heck yeah. You can appreciate smaller fish without calling them trophies. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So if that fish was a 40, would you have told him they don't get much bigger in that water? Just the same question....
If you have that 50" goal, why are you fishing water where 40" is a big fish?
Same question, just a different perspective for the asking.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | sworrall - 2/12/2008 11:05 PM
So if that fish was a 40, would you have told him they don't get much bigger in that water? Just the same question....
If you have that 50" goal, why are you fishing water where 40" is a big fish?
Same question, just a different perspective for the asking.
Some days I scrap the 50 inch goal and want some action, just for the fun of it. I felt I could take my boss there and get him his first fish. I also enjoy days of just going out and catching fish, and I was reasonably confident we could go out and at least see a handfull of fish if not catch a few. We had action all day long.
Had he caught a 40 inch fish, yes I would have told him they dont get much bigger in this water, and that he caught a good fish. But the fish grow bigger, and I wouldnt suggest he rush out to get a replica of a 40 inch fish. I would have said, nice fish, great job. I would have been happy as can be. But I would have also told him, they get bigger and I want to put you on bigger. But I think getting him experience handling a musky was also valuable.
So if my goal is for a 50 inch fish I cant fish waters that have smaller fish just for the fun of fishing? | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I asked a question that had an obvious answer. You fished that water because that is where you could take your boss, right? That is a large part of the entire point of this thread, you appreciate the fishery, and go there because it works for you. You understand the potential, accept it and even embrace that potential, figured out that water and are able to regularly catch fish there. If your chosen field of employment is any indication, you are going to run into a brick wall with any other assessment, right?
Who said anything about a replica? I asked if you would have told him that was a good fish for that water. You said yes, and didn't need to add the 'replica' comment, that goes without saying. But what if he ASKED where he could get a replica, didn't think he'd be headed to Bay of Green Bay soon, and probably wouldn't ever catch a larger fish? I bet he doesn't hang out with a bunch of Muskie freaks, so anyone HE has over would probably think a 40" fish is a giant.
Didn't you just say the definition of a 'trophy' is going to be pretty personal? I bet Lax HAS a 40" replica available.
You are describing YOUR personal preference for a fish for which you would get a replica made. That's not the original question, but your answer is PART of the 'place' I'm trying to get to. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Yes I accept the potential of that water. I dont go hoping for something big. Somedays are just days where seeing a bunch of little guys go gonzo over a bucktail is a blast. But I dont consider that water trophy water, and you are correct that is MY opinion. And yes the definition of 'trophy' is personal. I think that has been a common theme among the past 5 pages.
Had he asked where he could get a replica you bet I would have told him where. But I also would have said he should hold off for a while and we would try for a bigger one, as I'm reasonably certain I know other places to get bigger fish. In my mind 'trophy' water. Yeah, to him a 40 inch fish would be a giant. Hell the 32 to him was a giant! And to be honest that 32 inch fish had me shaking more than either of the 50's I stumbled into did and I took nothing away from him catching his first.
Again, in my eyes a 50 is a trophy. Perhaps in the eyes of the old timer crappie angler who sifts through hundreds of thousands of 14 inch crappies in his lifetime and in his last years comes upon a 35 incher that was hungry for a crappie minnow, that could be his trophy. Great for him, I wont take anything away from him, even if he keeps it to hang on his wall.
A trophy is personal, we can go around in circles all day long about the guy who can only fish a lake that only kicks out a few 40 inch fish and to him that is a fish of a lifetime versus others who fish big fish waters and feel that 50+ is a trophy and a 40 is a dink. I'll be happy for either angler. Rick or Joe have replicas for both anglers. But the fact is we're going around in circles. As said several times in this thread, a trophy is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure what more can be said?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read the entire thread, and you'll begin to see what I'm getting at. One heck of alot more was said than just what you got out of this so far.
You listen to the Casselman presentation yet? If not, do it, it's a nice piece and will help explain where I'm trying to go with all of this.
What happens when what so many here insist is a 'personal decision' becomes a paradigm (broad definition)? What happens when that paradigm shifts to an unattainable place for a very large portion of the muskie water out there? And who DID that, if not you and I?
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 2/12/2008 10:33 PM
You didn't answer a single question I asked.
I disagree with the 'selfish hunter' statement. I bet overall hunting ethics are not alot different now than 25 years ago. This year I hunted 600 yards from a young man (mebbe 16) who hiked in a 45 minute walk in the dark each morning from the other direction who passed as many as I did the first four days of season this year. Great kid, good hunter, and had realistic expectations. That, Sled, to me is about right.
I'm talking about giving enough real and accurate information to our kids, and for that matter, ANY new angler or sportsman so they can truly understand what they have locally and understand and APPRECIATE what a big fish/squirrel/rabbit/grouse/muskie in that area really is.
How is that different than your post?
the "difference" is that i wasn't arguing. not sure why but all your responses on the 5 pages of this post seem (i said seem) outwardly to be a counter to an argument.
what i have "seen" imo in the northwoods and most public hunting land is that if it's got horns (spikes to whatever) ... it gets shot. that's a lack of discipline or understanding of the sport.
when i see a bull-doe (my own description) with a nose 5' long (an exaggeration) with 2 years worth of young following it around (not an exaggeration) ... i know there is a selective harvest problem.
spikes, 4 and 6 tiny baskets shot and registered and highlighted in the paper ... it's no wonder you make the comment that "in this area" what is a trophy. the herd is lead by a 4 or 5 year old doe ... and bucks are lucky to live to be 2-year olds.
the kid you met is great to hear about ... but he's a small percentage of what comes up to buy a tag and go shooting.
that's my comment. the comment is not meant to be argumentative ... if you'd like to argue with me ... have fun. looks like you've got a long list you're trying to fix ...
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
I read your posts, and it seems your list is a bit longer than mine. Someone has to TRY to do it, right? Your kids are only kids one time, I get that. Mine were too, been there and did that, all the way, and I'm pretty happy with the results so far.
My hope is to get folks to think about this, and some may reach a conclusion that might just fix a problem or two in the future, at least for them and those they influence. Some may find this subject to hit too close to the bone and react a bit too angrily for such a simple question. Mabe that person will think a bit before reacting in a condescending or untoward manner to a newbie's 43" from the Fox Chain. Maybe that person will actually look into the why's and wherefores of all of this...maybe not.
Some will read this and wonder what all the fuss is about. Some have to work with the very implications that have been indicated here every day, and find it increasingly difficult.
Some will read two posts and bail out. That's fine too.
One thing for certain, it only takes one time to drive many folks out of the sport. Many are pretty young and it's been a while since we've had a good shot at involving a good number of young anglers. Those are the folks you are railing about...right? Wouldn't it be a more positive thing to draw them into this sport and make sure they enter with reasonable expectations, learn a little from us all, and feel welcomeat least here no matter what is their PB? That's just a small segment of the overall picture, but the overall picture...yours, mine, Pointers, Addicts, lambeaus, and more will define our impact on this sport now and into the future, each in our own little sphere of influence but all with inexorable impact on the whole. If you question that, you have failed to see the full possible impact of instant information exchange..... | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | not commenting on the fox chain ... but i my (our) area often times that newbie clubs the 43" fish in waters where it should get a chance to grow, not unlike the little johny deer scenario and therein lies much of the stress to our populations that could measure up to true trophies but often-times never get the chance because we celebrate a mistake made for little johny instead of teaching him the right way to do it in the first place.
in our area i've always considered the realistic expectations of trying to catch a fish over 45" each year and a fish over 50" in a lifetime ... i consider the 50" plus the trophy tying it into the trophy-class for the species and consider the 45" a nice fish. if any of my kids wants a replica of a trophy it doesn't come easy here or there but if he wants that ... he's coming with me to eagle and even there they don't jump in the boat and you have to earn them with good boatside skills ... if he wanted to get a replica of a 43 or 45 i'd talk him out of it and show him what a real trophy is ... as far as harvest i've taught them that in some areas due to stocking that there are needs for regulations that might cull out some smaller males and allow the system to stratify and grow (slots) ... beyond that i've taught them that there is as much or more enjoyment releasing as in catching and the we will release ... they've learned that it's wrong to take prime egg-producers whether it be muskies, pike, walleyes or bass ... and that the best fish to eat are the pike we pull through the ice ... but one thing is for sure ... they've learned what a trophy really is and haven't waited for santa clause to come down a hole nobody could fit through ... it's easier to tell them the truth to begin with, that way you don't come off a liar and have to explain it to them later. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
We are not and never were talking about harvesting a muskie, so I'd appreciate it if that problem stays out of this one.
Santa Claus is a 50" fish in an awful lot of muskie waters across the country.
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | we were talking about little johny harvesting a little buck and calling it a trophy .... there is a correllation between that and fishing as it relates to the misnomer of "trophy" for little johny so that we don't hurt his feelings. it wasn't meant to be a keep or not thing ... i thought we were on the subject of teaching kids who are the future of our sports. was just answering questions asked. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ' but i my (our) area often times that newbie clubs the 43" fish in waters where it should get a chance to grow, not unlike the little johny deer scenario'
I never said a 2.5 year old six is a trophy. I did say there are areas of this country where that may be a pretty desirable animal if one intends to shoot a deer at all. That's reality. If you think the entire Wisconsin deer herd should be managed for 3.5 year old bucks and up, by all means lobby the DNR and insurance companies, etc. to limit harvest to nothing under 8 points. I'd support that idea, but won't hold my breath waiting for it to pass.
There is already 'earn a buck' in place in many counties, so that's forcing the harvest of does.
And we were talking about teaching kids, and others, too. I'm suggesting actual reality is a good place to start that process. So are you, looks to me.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Interesting question and many great replies both ways. I agree with Steve's (and Casselman's) point, but also see merit in Jerry's statement...lowered expectations.
I think "expectations" were wrongly fostered during the heyday of the resort years (most now condoing out) when resorters gave folks "false hope" that they could catch a new world record from the lake they were on.
This subject comes up often when I present my historical slides show on histories biggest muskies and where I think the next record will come from. My one constant answer to those wondering if the lake they fish has the potential is always the same: "If the lake record is 33 pounds, you have NO CHANCE of catching a world record there."
As has been said, if you want BIG fish, you MUST fish where they are.
Posted after I read only the first page. Steve's comment: "I'm talking about giving enough real and accurate information to our kids, and for that matter, ANY new angler or sportsman so they can truly understand what they have locally and understand and APPRECIATE what a big fish/squirrel/rabbit/grouse/muskie in that area really is." is right on target.
Perhaps the term "BIG FISH" for a particular body of water where maximum size is less than the maximum attainable in other waters is the better term to use there. In those waters where they are able to attain 50 inches and more the term "TROPHY" could be used. But then, as has been said several times, "trophy" is in the eye of the beholder. I know I am happy for my clients when they get a 40 incher and think of it as "their" triphy and I get as excited as they do...or more!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/13/2008 11:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 581
| Steve, I think I might be grasping what you are getting at. I'll try to rephrase what I am understanding you saying: By our labeling a "trophy" fish at a certain or specific size that is an unattainable goal for most anglers in most geographic regions, are we possibly hurting the growth of the sport by creating expectations and goals that can't be met by the average angler? Then by doing so, are we setting anglers up to be unreasonably disappointed, despite their good catches, and likewise potentially turning people off or away from the sport? Shouldn't we therefore recognize "trophy" fish in certain bodies of water at a size that truly is a "trophy" for that specific body of water, e.g., a 41" from the Tiger Cat Flowage?
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.
My personal opinion is that this "problem" (whether real or perceived) is being approached slightly wrong. First, I think that you're implying or assuming that a signficant segment of muskie anglers are concerned about what others are catching, and are comparing their catches to see whether they "measure up", and further, this goal-setting and "measuring up" to their peers is part of the motivation to be a muskie angler. That is probably true, but I don't know. I guess you'd know better than me. But if the assumption is correct, that's where I see the real problem (again, whether it's real or perceived....I'm not saying either way).
What is it about muskie fishing that creates the need to compete and compare? People who love fishing truly for the sake of fishing don't give a darn about whether their personal catches stack up with the self-proclaimed experts. They fish because it's fun.
I grew up fishing for bass every Saturday morning with my dad. As a 7 year old, I didn't care whether the 12" bass I caught was correctly labeled a "trophy" or a "dink". I just enjoyed being with my dad and catching a fish. I took my 25 year old sister fishing this past fall, and she caught her first muskie, a 34"er, and not long after caught another one at 34". She was so excited about catching those fish. She really didn't care how a 34" fish stacked up or compared with others. Why should she? She was beside herself with excitement over catching these fish. She is now interested in buying some muskie gear and has expressed interest in fishing with me in the future. Obviously, she had lots of fun catching that fish.
In Pointer's example with his boss catching the 32", the boss probably didn't need to know whether the 32" was a "dink". Why did Pointer feel the need to label it as such? Did that label probably diminish the catch for his boss a bit? I’d guess that the answer is yes. Why be a joy stealer? I'm not picking on Pointer, but it's an example of what I think is an over-emphasis on equating the size of a catch with the joy of fishing.
To be completely honest, this topic and the responses to this thread exemplifies an issue that I do believe will turn people off to muskie fishing. And maybe I am coming full circle now to your point, Steve. Those who say that a true trophy has to be at least 48”, or 54” or 60lbs, or whatever, could be perceived as implicitly telling others that their "trophy" catches don’t stack up.
If I diminished my sister's catch by telling her it was a "dink" and therefore insignificant, or if others told her that her catch was not in anyway noteworthy, would she still be just as excited about muskie fishing? Maybe, maybe not. But again, the simple fact that some feel the need to label her catch as a "trophy" vs. a "non-trophy" is perhaps the real problem.
But trying to figure out what size fish is a true trophy from what waters, and then extend appropriate recognition, congratulations and respect, probably isn’t feasible in this day in age. Instead, to truly get at this “problem” you’ll need to change the competitive and comparative mindset that pervades the sport at the top end.
Anyways, I'm rambling. But that's my $0.02.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever.
A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers...
A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big.
| |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | MikeHulbert - 2/13/2008 11:04 AM This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever. A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers... A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big. Isn't is relative though? Is a 50" fish in Webster is as much or maybe more of a trophy as a 54" fish in Vermillion/Mille Lacs/Ottawa/etc? Heck for that matter maybe even a 48" fish in Webster since 54"ers in Vermillion/Mille Lacs/Ottawa/etc are more common than 50" fish in Webster. I think Steve is correct though, we do paint a picture in the muskie world that 50"ers grow on trees and many people will never see a 50 let alone catch one.
Edited by Will Schultz 2/13/2008 10:23 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Right, which is why a trophy is a special fish.
BIG is BIG, trophies are BIG.
40-47 inch fish aren't trophies, no matter where you catch them.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever.
A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers...
A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big.'
Mike, thanks for that. You just posted an example of a PORTION of what I am referring to.
Matt,
Sure, you have a portion of what I'm trying to say nailed. Now take it further, and install those expectations as a paradigm. Reinforce those expectations by creating an atmosphere where no matter where a person CAN fish, no muskie is 'worthy' of sharing with us...the experience and the image and the story...unless it's a 'big fish'. We try very hard here to encourage the opposite, and we hope we are successful. lambeau said it in the 'my watch' reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One gets comments like , "I was fishing on my little lake here in (state or province) and had a great day. I caught three fish, the largest was only 46 though."
WHAT?? ONLY??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now create an atmosphere where the understanding of how 50" muskies get to BE 50" becomes secondary to demand and expectations, add that misconceptions can be exploited on the web, and you have another issue that fisheries managers across the country are trying hard to deal with. And encourage by proxy that harvest should be limited to that fish, that 50" fish, or one larger and you have another issue; we insist that big fish need to be released, but by proxy, offer that if one IS to harvest a Muskie, it should BE a big fish. Thank goodness for replicas hitting the mark...now IMHO we need to let folks know what the chances of actually CATCHING a 50 really are, and how much fun the sometimes lifelong trip to catching that fish can and should be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one create a reputation in the Muskie world? Does catching big fish define talent, and if so, why? If one is to catch a big fish, it has been said, one must fish where there ARE big fish. Is it the largest fish on the planet that define talent? If that's so, is it any wonder that new 'trophy' opportunities across North America see the same folks getting there and working it for the big girl? And is it any wonder those folks, who are the backbone of the promotional Muskie world, draw others to what have been pronounced as the new and only cool places to fish? And is it any wonder those same folks will be the first to complain about increasing pressure, leaving the locals to look askance at the whole deal, and the first to move on to the next hot waters? And is it any wonder those who cannot go to those waters and have little chance at a fish in the mid 50" class appear to the rest of us like they have accomplished less than what is a GREAT day when they have a 3 fish day with 2 over 40 and 1 over 45?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should BIG muskies define the entire experience, the entire sport? And should the definition of BIG be strictly the largest out there at the time? I don't think so, not once one gets involved and from many reactions here that's not even close to the reality, but from a few feet away, what is the appearance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one is a pretty accomplished angler but has very limited time or resources, that 'broken dream' reference mentioned before comes into play unless one fishes where there are LOTS of big fish, and has a good trip to boot. If not, a quote like the following can ensue...
"I went to Mille Lacs, fished with a well known Guide and didn't even SEE a big fish..."
Of course that happens, that is reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are the paradigms so different in the Walleye and Bass worlds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not just talking about anyone actually abusing a fellow because a report or story about a 'dink' seems important to him. I'm talking about the very real perception that one shouldn't even offer the story for FEAR of that happening...AND EVEN WORSE... some very good anglers won't talk about a really nice fish experience because of the inevitable "is that fish as big as it is reported to be' stuff. That is a little sad, I think. | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | This has got to be the longest post about absolutely NOTHING ever.
A trophy is a BIG fish, not a 40 incher in a lake full of 32 inchers...
A trophy is a BIG fish....and no matter how you look at it, 40 isn't big.
you just lost 3 potential clients just for that remark
if I brought my son on a trip with you and caught a 40" that would be a real trophy to him no matter what you say and for you to say its not in public is just wrong,
you said it yourself a "trophy is a special fish" I would like to add to that regardless of how big it is.
sorry but to tell you the truth I was just looking at your web page to book a guide for this coming season and now it looks like i will have to look elsewhere
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Matt DeVos - 2/13/2008 10:00 AM
In Pointer's example with his boss catching the 32", the boss probably didn't need to know whether the 32" was a "dink". Why did Pointer feel the need to label it as such? Did that label probably diminish the catch for his boss a bit? I’d guess that the answer is yes. Why be a joy stealer? I'm not picking on Pointer, but it's an example of what I think is an over-emphasis on equating the size of a catch with the joy of fishing.
Labeling that fish a 'dink' didnt diminish any of the joy or fun we had that day. I've shown him this website. He enjoy's scrolling through the Lax reproduction contest photos. He isnt sheltered, he can see that they do in fact grow bigger. When I showed him the suckers we were going to be fishing with, he stated that he would be happy just bringing those in at the end of the day as they were bigger than most things he catches. So the label 'dink' didnt diminish anything. In my opinion it instills a feeling of "Man if this thing was this fun as a dink, imagine what a 36 incher is like, or a 40, or bigger" So it puts hope of a bigger one in his head, and I told him we would get out and chase bigger fish, in waters that had bigger fish.
I know you arent picking on me, I just felt I had to comment a bit more on what happened that day.
Is size being emphasized too much in this sport? Maybe. However, dont we all go out and strive to catch the biggest fish we can? Yes, and for some that might only be a 40 inch fish. I mentioned the Lax Reproduction contest. If we are concerned about turning people away from the sport, isnt that excluding people that fish in waters that dont produce fish that reach the size needed to enter a fish? Do you need to catch a 'trophy' to be a good angler or to have a good time? | |
| | |
| How exactly are you supposed to get people to realize that trophies are relative to said body of water when all that is promoted in the "industry" are 50"+ers?
When is that last time you saw a TV show, or magazine, guide, or lure manufacturer talk about fishing for smaller fish?
Now don't take that the wrong way, there is no reason they should do that.
Point being, muskie fishing is just like any other type of fishing.
The biggest Bass in the world are in California. Bass anglers know this, but millions of guys fish for them all over the US and have a blast catching them.
I think people are a lot smarter then they are given credit for.
JS
| |
| | |
| Right, which is why a trophy is a special fish.
BIG is BIG, trophies are BIG.
40-47 inch fish aren't trophies, no matter where you catch them.
in a lot of ways, i agree with this...blunt as a baseball bat (as usual, Mike), but the point is right.
i also agree with the message Steve is belabouring, his point is right too.
it's a bit semantic, but there is a meaningful difference between whether a fish is "special" or a "trophy".
it's simply true that certain waters are not capable of producing trophy fish.
they are still very capable of producing special fish, in comparison to that lake's own ultimate potential, but the term trophy might best be reserved as a standard for comparison to a muskies' ultimate potential regardless of water.
imho, we can encourage people to enjoy their catches by making note of the fact that certain fish are special and rare relative to the waters they were caught in, or even the circumstances of the catch that made it special. doing this will help grow the sport, share the joy, celebrate the pictures, etc.
i don't think that having a different sport-wide recognition of "trophy" diminishes our ability to celebrate special catches on non-trophy waters.
i think it's GOOD to have a lofty trophy ideal, something that's difficult to achieve, perhaps even impossible on certain waters. this helps all of us, young and old, to dream about someday, oneday, hooking into that monster fish. my own anticipation for certain trips to trophy waters gets me through the winter, and so does looking forward to a shot at a non-trophy special fish on local lakes.
spitting in each others' eyes over this is silly, because it is possible to do both: recognize and celebrate special fish based on the waters that produced them, while also recognizing true trophies as a measure of what muskies' can achieve when the place and conditions are right.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I guess I really don't understand why some of you guys have a problem with those who hold themselves to a high standard? I keep hearing references about ego, making you feel like a man, beating the catches of others...Well, to some, it's not really about that. I try and hold myself to a high standard in all walks of life, why should musky fishing be any different then? There's nothing wrong with being goal oriented and shooting for the sky. If you don't agree with that, and you are content catching a 41" fish and calling it a trophy, that is fine. But don't call people out who don't agree with that, we all have different things that make us tick, for me, it is the opportunity to catch BIG, TROPHY fish. ( I didn't use to be that way until I started seeing/catching bigger fish!) Again, just as I don't see the harm in people enjoying catching mid-size muskies, I certainly do not see the harm in those who enjoy the pursuit of monster fish?? | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Floydss,
The question asked is what is a trophy, and my thought is a trophy is a very large fish, ones that are hard to come by.
The question was not, what is a trophy for somebody new to the sport, or what is a trophy for a kid, or what is a trophy for a beginner, the question was, "What is a TRUE TROPHY" and a true trophy is something very large...something that not all lakes have...something that not all people have caught...a trophy is something special.... I am not saying that if your kid catches a fish that it isn't "special" as it would be. But a TROPHY is the main question here. And a trophy musky is a BIG, LARGE fish.
If the question was, "Can a 40 incher be a trophy to any of you?" or "Can a 40 incher be a trophy to somebody under the right circumstances or situation?" Then the answer would be yes. But the question is, "What is a TRUE TROPHY?" A true trophy is a very large fish that some people might fish their lifetimes for. A TRUE TROPHY is a fish that only certain lakes have. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And should the word 'trophy' be confused with the word 'record'? Is that not why B&C and P&Y and Safari Club exist in the world of hunting? To redefine what a truly large animal IS, and yet allow hunters to socially accept that a buck not quite to the absolute max might still be a hell of a buck?
Why is it we only recognize STATE and WORLD record muskies, but recognize and celebrate 'book' quality bucks? Is muskie hunting, adding of course CPR, not parallel to other forms of big game hunting?
Starting to gel now.... | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| Brian, I think we all hold ourselves to pretty high standards. But we can also set ourselves up for some pretty big dissapointments if our expectations are beyond the maximum capabilities of our fisheries. Even more important than that are the people who are new to the sport, who because of the standards WE set and they accept, are starting out doomed to fail.
If you're out there fishing thinking you haven't arrived until you break 50", and there's not a 50" fish within 400 miles of you, that doesn't make your chances of "accomplishing" anything very good, now does it?
Nobody is saying that chasing big fish is bad, it's why I will go to Eagle again this year. And to be honest, I WILL be dissapointed if I don't at least see one that size once during the week. But even that is a bit lofty in terms of reality.
If we have guys out there in pick-your-state/region who are holding themselves to the same standards as someone fishing in the trophy fisheries, because that's the expectation WE have created for them, that's a bad thing. | |
| | |
| "Gee, Mike, thanks for that. You just posted an example of a PORTION of what I am referring to."
Gee Steve, just another example that when someone has a different opinion than you, you feel the need to put them down. In fact, this thread is full of those examples from you.
Oh no, someone questioned you, better delete fast... | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not at all, Guest, Mike and I can fire away at each other with plenty of mutual respect left at the end of the day...and I'd fish with Mike anywhere anytime, he's a good fisherman.
And he DID post an example of what I am trying to get to. Notice most of my comments are formed as questions...and notice the answers are flowing and the questions have hit nerves from all sides of this. That wasn't unanticipated, sir. My goal isn't to have folks agree with me, much the contrary, it's to settle on a reality that borders truth in situation.
TALKING STRICTLY MUSKIES...You see, one's reality is usually based on one's perspective, which in this case can be seriously skewed by something as simple as what lakes are next door. Your 'reality' may be the direct opposite of mine, and the 'reality' that becomes paradigm nowhere near either. That's just plain crazy, IMHO.
Is this an editorial stance I am indicating? Yup.
And Pointer, that's why we have the Lax contest start at 45". Nice fish anywhere, and most folks are able to reach waters in a day trip that can produce a 45. Put it at 50, and a huge portion of that contest entry content goes away. We had people complain it WASN'T set at 50, believe mne. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| Ok, not to be a smart @%$, but what exactly is the question.
I've read through this, and its either been answered, or the question needs to be defined better (or Steve is trying to stir the pot).
Or....I'm just dumb and can't figure it out, which is a distinct possibility. | |
| | |
| Why is it we only recognize STATE and WORLD record muskies, but recognize and celebrate 'book' quality bucks? Is muskie hunting, adding of course CPR, not parallel to other forms of big game hunting?
ummm, there is a book that lists big, non-record muskies...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39...
(Compendium Volmume II.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Compendium Volmume II.jpg (40KB - 189 downloads)
| |
| | |
| with the growth of this sport and the "hush" put on 100% CPR advocates, 40" fish will one day be the trophys. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hush? Where is there a 'hush' on 100% cpr advocates, Hoop?
lambeau,
A great read, but an admitted historical compendium. Is that book going to parallel B&C, P&Y, and Safari Club? Will that read decide for us what the true definition of a big muskie is, or tell us what it has been... | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| So the question is....what is a big muskie? | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | mike,
Is not the smaller fish caught by the new angler a true trophy?? Or a even a legal fish for someone who has fished exclusivly for muskie for years without catching one??? there are just to many variables to set a "trophy standard"
do I think there should be a "book" of sorts say like p+y or b+c, that could make things very interesting but don't muskies inc already have something like that?? if one was going to create a book i would say that 50" would be the magic number. Now i am not saying that a 49,48 or even a 40 is not a trophy because a trophy is a special catch,
take for say some people pride themselves on "trophy wifes" well not everyones taste is different ive seen alot of ugly women in my day (grew up in central wi) and all those women are someones trophy. I could see setting a number for the books but to say if it isnt in the book it is not a trophy is not right.
sry if im hard to understand i skipped way to much school to go fishing mainly english class.. LOL
p.s. much respect to you for your past catches!!
so that | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And does that definition then define 'trophy'? And does that define only those top end fish in a continually fluid North American fishery/ And all the other questions asked here by everyone.
Ahhh, there we have it. Should the definition of 'trophy' and 'big fish' be left to the folks who have the money, time, and opportunity to pursue the largest specimens out there to the ends of the Muskie's range? And should a small number of lakes in a tiny section of the Muskie range cause a paradigm shift for the ENTIRETY?
I submit we have been leaving the entire process to promotional and marketing efforts, to the exact folks we love to hate. Our only WR record keepers can't even agree or get it right on what REALLY IS a record, hence the forming of the original WRMA.
Our sport has grown to the proportion where some think it would be truly beneficial to have a book style record kept...not a pay to play group either...that would start the bar of 'making the book' WAY below 70 pounds. Realistic expectations by region would become obvious, and comments like " That's a MONSTER for that area" would be far more acceptable to all. Regional trends would become obvious, biologists and scientists could have a great reference tool for the status of big fish in the region they work. The benefits far outweigh the difficulties in organization, IMHO. Pro anglers would showup alot, and great anglers who are NOT pros would too.
So what IS the standard? Is it length, is it girth and length, is it weight, or is it all or none of the above? Since the answers here have ALL been length related, is that truly the standard? | |
| | |
| Steve,
If somebody put up a picture of a trophy fish that was intentionally killed, and I or anybody else who questioned why they killed the fish would get taken to task.
The PETA comments or the "well then you should never wet another line...." bs- comments will ALWAYS follow.
I am not directing this toward you or the moderators, just taking a pot-shot at those out there who think killing a fish for it's skin is perfectly acceptable practice.
Editiors Note:
There obviously still is wide disagreement about intentional and even incidental harvest of muskies of any size. Because one disagrees either way doesn't make them right or wrong, it just indicates disagreement. Hoop, many times when a 100% CPR advocate posts here, the tendency is to go rude and angry very fast, and that is the reason they get shouted down many times. They can be right as rain, but if they come off as a jerk, the message is they come off as a jerk, not why 100% CPR is a good idea. Just an editorial observation.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | If you read my post again, it will say, "yes a 40 caught by a kid, beginner, etc... can be a trophy" BUT the question was, what is a TRUE TROPHY, not what is a trophy to a kid, a beginner, somebody who hasn't caught one, etc...
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hoop, Off the track here, but isn't that part and parcel of any discussion? It isn't what is said most times, it's how it's said.
Less harvest and more CPR is reality right now, and will be every day into the future. Is it where it 'should' be? Who defines THAT? there you have it...
Back to the original questions. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
| sworrall - 2/13/2008 12:33 PM
"Our sport has grown to the proportion where some think it would be truly beneficial to have a book style record kept...not a pay to play group either...that would start the bar of 'making the book' WAY below 70 pounds. Realistic expectations by region would become obvious, and comments like " That's a MONSTER for that area" would be far more acceptable to all. Regional trends would become obvious, biologists and scientists could have a great reference tool for the status of big fish in the region they work."
Isn't that what state records do now? I would assume that is about as practical as a regional recognition would get. If you break it down and use say Virginia (I picked this because I assume not many have any preconcieved notions about this state) as an example, an area not really known for its musky fishing, and was surprised to find out that the state record is actually 45.5# caught out of the New River. So wouldn't that be the local bar to set the Virginia standard too? So in that case I think an angler (if they even want to) would be able to stack up his/her catches around that number, instead of a fish caught from places elsewhere.
Something else I found interesting when looking up the info on Virginia was the following quote. Apparantly Virginia took it upon themselves to set some sort of "trophy" (citations) recognition program.
"The muskie is the largest game fish found in the New River. They are stocked throughout the entire New River from North Carolina to West Virginia. The current Virginia state record, a 45 lbs 8 oz trophy, was caught in the lower New River in June 2007. From 1997 through 2003, 190 citation size muskie (15 pounds or 40 inches) were registered in Virginia. In fact, from 1990 through 2003, 45% of all muskie citations registered in the state were caught in the New River.
So there you have it, catch yourself a 40" from Virginia and you get yourself a pat on the back.
There are alot of examples like this. I do believe the Vilas County Musky Marathon will actually give you a certificate for any fish entered. Illinois used to give out deer and turkey pins for successful sportsman. Illinois also has what they call the BBRP (Big Buck Regognition Program) for anything over 115" I think. Heck, look no further than the Lakeland Times if you want recognition.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You miss the point, 55. it isn't just about recognition, one might be internalizing there, I fear. Why is it some want to immediately assume it's personal recognition that is the only benefit? That simply is not true at all. Sure, the 'pat on the back' is nice, why else would you post a picture here, for example? It's also cool to tell your friends about the fish, tell your peers the story resulting in getting it published right here or on another web property, in a hard copy pub, etc....Why is that suddenly to be considered a negative, since our reality is LITERALLY BASED on images and stories placed here and elsewhere willy nilly?
I don't think that is what the State 'records' do now. The very word should tell you why. yes, there are lots of fragmented attempts on a local level to get good data, but nothing that sets the bar anywhere, really. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So are you looking for some sort of County wide record system? So anglers could compare a catch to some of the county fish? Maybe I'm missing the boat again? I tend to do that often, its why I wear waders | |
| | |
| OK then, I'll stay on point.
this is entirely a subjective opinion as to what people feel is a trophy.
catching a 40" out of a lake full of 30"s is a nice personal accomplishment. But in no way does it constitute a trophy, particularly when comparing it to 53"s caught out of Mille Lacs, regardless of how many 50+ Mille Lacs spits out.
In the days before the phone and internet is some remote town, I can see where catching a 40" might have been a big deal. But here we are in 2008, chatting on an interent board littered with pictures of HUGE fish with guys from IL, IN, MN, WI, IA, Canada, etc... a 40" fish is not a trophy. Possibly a personal best, but not a trophy.
It is not meant to be demeaning to the angler who caught the 40", but come on, they caugth the largest midget, nothing more. If it's a kid, great, I'd give him 5 and a pat on the back. If it were an adult, I'd only wish to be in a bar with a dozen guys throwing a few back trading fish stories, to here I say....did I ever tell you about the 40" I got on Spider?? LOL I would hope that I didn't have liquid in my mouth because I might spit it up with laughter. | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| I might add that a record is just that, A RECORD. It tells nothing about whether fish are being caught regularly that are close to that, or not within a mile, nor does it accurately reflect what is going on in that fishery or that state as of today, especially if that record is 30 years old.
Steve, what you're asking for is sort of a proverbial Lunge Log for the masses, right? Something to catalog what is really being caught where and when, by whom, how big, and how often. One of the benefits would be sort of a "ruler" for which to see of your 36.75" x 16" musky is a trophy or not, (tongue planted firmly in cheek there) but more importantly a tool for the DNR biologists to assess the REAL state of our fisheries. I know of no such thing, and I'm not sure there will ever be one. Who would do it? How would you verify whether the information was not fabricated? If as I suspect many of the "best" catches are swept under the rug, how to you guarantee that what you'd have went beyond the scope of what's already out there?
About the only way I see to make something like that happen is at the level of the DNR, tied through the licensing department. Each license holder would be given permission at the end of the season to log onto an online datebase with their license #, and enter their catches for the season. It would have to be broken down in such a way to make entry a simple process, idoit prooof, and of course with no incentive to lie and no possible ramifications for entering your big fishes caught from your lake X's...
That data could then be extrapolated into graphs by region, showing average size and number of catches per angler hour. Other than the possibility of everyone using that data to choose where to fish (or not) being seen by some as a bad thing, it could have tremendous benefit... | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | pointer you got an extra pair cause i think i fell out too!
sounds to me like you want every muskie over "X" inches to be registered? | |
| | |
| as for the county record book keeping.
I could see this benefit the countys that have big fish recorded in terms of tourism.
I can't really see somebody plan a fishing trip to a particular county with a history of 42" monsters. They would likely drive straight thru it to the county with 50s on the book. | |
| | |
| About the only way I see to make something like that happen is at the level of the DNR...
or the Muskies Inc Lunge Log.
you don't need ALL the data, just enough to be representative, and MI's data does a relatively good job of that.
here's the data for Spider Lake in Vilas Co., WI
size/# released/# kept
30-34.75 14 0
35-39.75 21 1
40-44.75 09 1
largest fish registered was 44" caught by Chuck Johnson in 1997.
not a lot of fish registered, but it's enough to give you a clear indication that anything over 40" is a pretty good fish from that lake, and 43"+ is rare indeed, a "special" fish, if not a trophy.
here's South Twin in Vilas Co., WI
size/# released/# kept
30-34.75 105 1
35-39.75 123 0
40-44.75 028 1
45-49.75 007 0
50-54.75 001 0
largest fish registered was a 51" caught and released by Tom Gelb in 2007.
this paints a picture of a very different lake. good solid spread of fair sized fish, with a shot at something that could be considered a trophy.
here is Vermilion in St.Louis Co, MN
30-34.75 201 0
35-39.75 526 0
40-44.75 1040 0
45-49.75 737 3
50-54.75 297 5
55-59.75 6 0
largest is a 56.6" fish caught/released by Jon Olstadt in 2007.
here's a lake with lots and lots of registered fish, strong numbers in the mid-40s, and a real population of extremely big fish.
this information helps you set your goals for the lake you're choosing to fish.
most every lake in the muskies' range has enough data in the Lunge Log to give you an idea of what you might expect from that body of water...the size structure curve is even represented in a cool bar graph.
Other than the possibility of everyone using that data to choose where to fish (or not) being seen by some as a bad thing, it could have tremendous benefit...
my friends and i do this all the time. when planning a trip to a certain region we'll research stocking data and review Muskies Inc log information to decide on whether or not to try a new lake. it's helpful in matching lake choice to what we're looking for: action, shot at a big fish, etc.
| |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | as for the county record book keeping.
I could see this benefit the countys that have big fish recorded in terms of tourism.
I can't really see somebody plan a fishing trip to a particular county with a history of 42" monsters. They would likely drive straight thru it to the county with 50s on the book.
But that will also increase the fishing pressure on certin lakes? | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| Mike, I agree, and I like the LL for the same reasons. But that's only a database of what Muskies Inc members are doing. It paints a fair picture of whats being caught where, but not everybody can oarticipate or use it. That limits it to what Steve eluded to earlier - a pay to play database. What I'm talking about could be used by everyone, for all species. Not just a tool for muskie anglers, but for ALL anglers. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What I am suggesting is that we remove the data source as to what is a big fish and what is not from those who propagate an existence from the largest there are and to the angling public. read ALL the posts here and you will see that it is totally subjective to where the Hulbets, Grants, Jonesi's, and other guides, pros, and influential folks are fishing. they follow to big fish wherever they are found, and artificially inflate reality based on the fact the big fish THEY catch are what makes NEWS.
Musky Hunter, Esox Angler, all the TV and radio and internet put together...the media is deciding for us based upon input from the very few what is and what is not a 'big fish'. Hoop slapped that nail right on.
Around these parts, Hoop, there are hundreds of little managed muskie lakes. Some are absolute jewels, others are great numbers lakes, etc. If I was in a bar talking to Dave Jonesi or Lee Bastain or Roger Sabota, and asked if they had guided Spider lately, the conversation would move forward nicely. If I said Keith got a 44 and a 42 out of Spider, the eyebrows would raise and the questions about what he got 'em on would ensue. If we were talking Moen, and it was 48" fish, same deal. Pelican a 50, maybe. At that point I don't much give a hoot what was caught on LOTW that day, and it has no bearing on what was caught around these parts. But if I get on the message boards an say what was caught on Spider, some folks won't appreciate it because they live in a different reality, and as I said, I think that's a sad deal. Doesn't make you right, or Spider Lake Muskies wrong, it is what it is, and they are what they are.
But I digress. | |
| | |
|
I would disagree that the media is deciding the viewopoint of the very few on what is a big fish.
Who doesn't agree that a big fish is 50"?
Nobody.
Who doesn't agree that a 40" is a big fish?
A lot more.
Big fish are big fish.
Making little fish into an accomplishment based on lake capability does not make them big fish, just something to be proud of in thier own right.
JS | |
| | |
|
MI lunge log info is for MI members only.
Please keep that in mind.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | After reading all the post I got to thinking about when I started musky fishing and what it it meant to me at that time. I think now that way to much of a what a trophy is and catching one is the main goal. I can see where some people feel we have become e-----t. I think a trophy is whatever the one that bags it wants it to be. We all have different views on it. To someone who catches alot of muskies a 40 incher is not a trophy. To someone that fishes muskies once a year and has caught only a few it is a trophy I think it is wrong for anyone to to look down at someone for keeping what he considerd a trophy. That where the E-word comes into play. Could it be we all need to relax a bit and take fishing for what it is----fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do we have to measure and gauge everyones success by the size of the fish they catch. I think the success of some has giuded them to think that the standards they go by should be the standard for all and thats wrong to me.
I'll bet that most of you thought you had a trophy when you caught that first 40 incher.
On the water in 7 weeks and counting!!!!!!!!!
Pfeiff
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 2/13/2008 8:59 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | The original question "What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie?"
"Huge fish" to who?
I agree that a huge fish is over 50, but that is because I have stuck and released a hand full of them and expect to catch that size every year. BUT if someone catches a 40'' class fish and that is now their personal best it "IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie" to them. Anyway you look at it that fish is a trophy to them. Not to some but to them.
Mike, you see the joy of people catching fish while you guide. You can't tell me you don't give them a high five or atta boy when they stick a 40" out of Webster. Why would you even guide down there if you look at fish under 40" like it was a shaker or waits of time fish. How many 50's does your local waters kick out? Why guide there if their is no chance to get a TRUE Trophy Muskie?
I am with the guys who say a True Trophy is a Huge Fish. But I still believe that a 40" fish is a True Trophy to some on waters it is hard to catch. Like Lambeau posted earler, it's where you fish. If I was to look to better my personal best of 57-inches I would only fish out East, The V, The Pond, and Greem Bay till I beat it. There is very little reason to fish other waters where it is harder to achieve.
No disrespect to anyone, a Big Huge fish(53+) is a TRUE Trophy Muskie, a Big fish(48) is also to others, and a Trophy fish(44) is to some. Anyway you look at it the term TROPHY FISH is in the eye of the one who catches it. Not someone who reads about it or look at it on the internet. Looking at threads like this only belittles the average big fish to some.
Years ago a big fish was in the high 40's or maybe 50". Now with the internet a guy is not going to post his personal best of mid 40's because of all the guys who catch HUGE fish and post them. I believe that if a guy catches a Huge fish in his mind we as fellow fishermen should reconize that send a personal atta boy to him. Who are we to judge what is big to who?
Anyway you look at it a "TRUE Trophy Muskie" s in the eye of the one who catches it.
Everyones "bar" is set at a different level. As you reach that level it goes higher. Everyone starts low and works up. Lots of Trophys in ones life as a fishermen or outdoorsman. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And, I'd add that the skew in reality is based on veeeeeeeeeery few fish out of VEEEERY limited areas when considering the total of all muskies caught in a year, 5 years, or a decade. And Mike is dead on, it's driven by instant information exchange and the rest of the Media that is about muskie.
And, just an observation,Mr. Hulbert doesn't backpedal. | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Mike,
A 40 incher is not a trophy. No way. And yes, I do shake off a TON of 40 inchers every year.
Why do I guide here...because that's where I live...
I didn't know the "What is a TRUE TROPHY?" question really meant, "Hulbert why do you guide in Indiana?"
I will type it ONE more time....maybe the 3rd time people read it they might understand what I am saying....
A 40 INCHER CAN BE SPECIAL...IT CAUGHT BY THE RIGHT PERSON OR UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT I USED THE WORD "SPECIAL" NOT "TROPHY".... BUT A TROPHY IS A TROPHY....SOMETHING REALLY REALLY BIG. SOMETHING NOT EVERYBODY HAS CAUGHT. SOMETHING NOT EVERY BODY OF WATER HAS. THE WORD "SPECIAL" AND "TROPHY" MEAN TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
And Mike, yes if somebody catches a 40 incher here in Indiana with me, I do give them a high five....tell them good job. I don't jump up and down, yelling and screaming.... a 40 incher is exactally that....a 40 incher....one of hundreds in my boat. | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| Interesting point, Steve, that the reality of what is considered a trophy regardless of where it is taken is skewed greatly by the written media. Would you consider, then, that M1 is written media and adds to that skewing of thought?
I think I follow the general trend of thought that you are undergoing, and can appreciate it genuinely.
I'm sort of tired of a lot of the attitude that prevails, someone pops a 45" fish on waters that it would be a giant, and people snub it. I won't ever begin to understand that.... They are limited by their environment and genetics, a trophy depends on the fishery that they are coming out of.
I guess those that say fish of that class are piddly, ought to spend less time on the waters they inhabit, and fish only BoGB, or Sab, or NW Angle. Go somewhere and target your 50" trophy, I'll target what trophy I can on each individual body of water I can. | |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | MikeHulbert - 2/14/2008 9:55 AM
Mike,
A 40 incher is not a trophy. No way. And yes, I do shake off a TON of 40 inchers every year.
Why do I guide here...because that's where I live...
I didn't know the "What is a TRUE TROPHY?" question really meant, "Hulbert why do you guide in Indiana?"
My point was that you don't give a 40-incher any respect. Spending all them hours fish every day you can only to be unimpressed with every fish you boat has got to be depressing as a fishermen and guide. That is why I ask "why". Money I guess. Love for the fish and sport? Thats hard to swallow with your views on what a big fish is.
I just can't see spending all those hours every day you can on the water only to come up with non trophy fish. I see a mid 40's as a good fish and I hope always will. The day I shake off 40's is the day fishing will only be a numbers game for me and the love will be lost. I like to fish for the sport and joy, numbers are just that.
I do agree with your views of a HUGE fish but not a TROPHY. Not all Trophys are the same size. Just like fish, some Special fish are Trophys to some if not most average fishermen.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Extreme,
You said it yourself, "A mid-40's is a nice fish" FOR SURE IT IS, I never said it wasn't. All I am saying is it isn't a TROPHY.
I love catching muskies and I do it for the love of fishing, for the love of watching people catch their first, the most, their biggest, etc... I enjoy catching them all. But I don't need to hold up a 43 incher for a photo...been there done that. How many 36-43 inchers do I need photos of???
I would never say that our waters are "trophy" waters in Indiana. Do we have nice fish, YOU BET WE DO, but true TROPHY MUSKIES??? Not very many.....
I spend all those days on the water chasing muskies because I love to fish for muskies and love guiding for muskies. The love of the sport has no determination if a fish is a trophy or not.
And if I catch 40 inchers all day, I am not depressed, not at all. I am very happy. I wouldn't say, "We are really tearing up the trophies today!!!!" I would say, "Man, we are having an awesome day on the water!!! Lots of really nice fish!!!!!"
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if you have never caught a mid 40" fish...
Then it's a 'new PB' because it can't be a 'big fish' or a trophy by a standard that, by the responses from this thread is a 'yeah, but' bar. Get there, it's great, catch a 'big fish' that's what, 3INCHES short, and it's a 'yeah, but'. Hmmm. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| To equate this to deer, a 160 is the minumum score to submit to the B&C.
Would most agree that a 160 class buck is a True Trophy?
The current world record is scored at 213 5/8. 160 is about 75% of that. It doesn't matter where the deer was bagged, only that it was fair chase.
Now, the current world record, (I know, some will argue this is the real world record) is 70 lbs. 75% of that is about a 52 lber. That's a really big fish, and a size not frequently caught. Perhaps no more than once or twice a year, for the past few years, and less frequently prior to that. I suspect about the same number of 160+ class deer are bagged per year than 52 lbers are caught, per hunter/angler capita.
Is 52 lbs. an unreasonably high number? I don't think so. For me, I think it would be about the same odds of me catching a fish that size, than to shoot a 160 class deer. I've been deer hunting a lot longer than muskie hunting. I got a 150 class buck, and have only had 1 chance at a 160+ class deer. I've got 1 40 lb. fish to my credit, and have had a chance at a 50+ lber. To me, about the same deal.
Location, location, location. It is everything. Where I now hunt, there's probably little chance of me getting an opportunity for a 160+ class deer. But, I could spend the dollars, and go on a hunt where my odds are better. I now fish waters that provide a very reasonable chance to catch a 50+ lber. Much better than where I used to live and fish.
My biggest fish on Pewaukee was 47 1/2". I felt real proud of that fish. My biggest on GB is 50 1/2", and I was very pleased with that fish. I did not have a replica made of either, as I have my own minimum size for to have one made.
For the record, I did get the 150 class deer mounted. Much cheaper than a fish replica, and it was a cool rack.
When I was young, I recall my Dad and Uncle talking about 4 footers. They fished the Bago Chain, and that was what they considered a Trophy back then(60's). Things have changed a bit since then, I believe, and mostly in the past 5 years. IMHO.
So, I quess I have to agree with Hulbert on this one. A good fish is a good fsh, and may be special to someone. But a BIG fish is still a very BIG fish, and that would be a TRUE TROPHY.
All that said, I thank EVERY fish that comes to visit me in the boat.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Whooligan, yes, and we are going to do something about it. | |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Good post Mike.
My point was that if your views of a good fish were that high then most of the fish you catch down there are dinks in your mind. That would get old to me. I always expect to tangle with a good one when I am out. If I get a 40" I am happy with it. Maybe that makes me average. Im ok with that.
Seeing the smiles and happyness on peoples faces when they score fish is great, thats what drives me to guide. I have had clients catch shortys and just legals and they were over joyed. Not even a good fish by most standards but Special to them.
Everyone is different. If I guide hard cores I expect to boat 40's and up with them. If they score a high 40's or a 50" then that could be a Special or Trophy to them on my waters. Fiftys only come to very few around here. I hear about 5 a year, maybe up to 10 caught and released. You never hear about all of them.
True HUGE Trophys are very rare around here. A clients 53-incher was a True Trophy here to me and to him. My best is 52.5" here and that ranks up there with my monster caught our East in my book. I still say Trophys are different depending on the waters you fish.
A 52-incher would be a True Trophy on Webster wouldn't it?
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Yea, I know. You guys can get up off the floor. I'll say it again. I agreed with Hulbert on something! hehehe | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | The question is:
What is a TRUE TROPHY??
Not what is a trophy on Webster, or What is a trophy on Mille Lacs, or What is a trophy on Green Bay...
The question is: What is a TRUE TROPHY????
Yes, a 52 on Webster would be a REALLY BIG fish in Indiana...the longest EVER caught, but there have been a zillion 52 inchers caught around Musky Country. So is it a TRUE TROPHY??? No. For Webster, yes...HELL YES...but again, the question is, WHAT IS A TRUE TROPHY?
You can't pick and choose what lakes you are talking about or the region you are talking about...but you are asking what a TRUE TROPHY IS....
Again, a TRUE TROPHY is something VERY special, something that hasn't been caught by 50% of the musky community, something that most musky waters don't even have.... | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | mike i understand what you are saying and if you look at the question "what is a true trophy"
well i think the answer is in the definitian of the word
1 A prize or memento, such as a cup or plaque, received as a symbol of victory, especially in sports.
2 A specimen or part, such as a lion's head, preserved as a token of a successful hunt.
3 A memento, as of one's personal achievements.
4 The spoils of war, dedicated in classical antiquity with an inscription to a deity and set up as a temporary monument on or near a battlefield, placed in an existing temple, or housed in a permanent, new structure.
the third one sums up what a true trophy is.
a 52 in fish would be a replica in my book but to some others it would have to be 54
so it seems a trophy is in the eye of the beholder
tony knuteson | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 50%? Then a true trophy is probably closer to 42".
And you still are missing the point even though you have MADE that point several times. You said it yourself, one cannot pick and choose; apply that to those who can't spend the summers fishing where ever there are big fish.
ONE question; does it make sense the 'setting the bar' on what is a true trophy should be by those who are all over the Muskie range looking for that next sweet spot, and making a portion of their living at it in the process? Or is that the standard in US sports these days, and it has spilled into a sport where the very concept is upside down? Isn't the 'bar' set in other sports largely set by athletic ability? Is the sport of muskie fishing so that big fish define who is a 'star'? Answer to that one is obvious, and it's WHY those who want to 'do this' travel to the next big fish location and are usually there early.
Then one has the situation where someone who lives in the area where the current sweet bite is becoming a 'personality' because of large fish caught from large fish water...not a bad thing, but what sort of measure is that to enforce on those not that fortunate?
Mike, I know you don't hunt, but a great example of how to better describe what a 'trophy class' fish might be would be the CONCEPT of P&Y and B&C. Let's the lower end might be set at 45"", and let the upper end be what it really is where ever one might have the delight to fish muskies. Why can't we describe a good fish by what is real, not what a tiny segment (more describing 'record')of folks have actually done? Perhaps that will adjust the norms out there to be more in line with reality, like Bass angling, where if one is adept at catching the best bass in any one system, they can be pretty hot stuff: AND, there's a trophy bass sub-culture there that focuses on HUGE fish, trophy hunters if you will, who have a completely different place in the social structure of the sport.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| MikeHulbert - 2/14/2008 11:37 AM
...but there have been a zillion 52 inchers caught around Musky Country. So is it a TRUE TROPHY??? No. <...> a TRUE TROPHY is something VERY special, something that hasn't been caught by 50% of the musky community, something that most musky waters don't even have....
A zillion 52 inchers, Mike? 50% of the musky community??
| |
| | |
Posts: 97
| I guess I don't really see the harm in calling a fish what it actually is size-wise anyway.
Is a 42" a nice fish? Yes. Is it a giant? No. And that has nothing to do with who caught that fish and what their opinion of what a trophy is.
Is a 32" small? Yes it is.
Is a 48" a big? Maybe to some people yes, to others no.
Here is something else to think about. Tiger Cat was brought up on occasion, and outside me knowing it was somewhere in Wisconsin, I had no idea if it was a trophy lake, or a numbers lake, or had really stunted fish. So if someone did post a picture of a 43" fish out of there, I don't think many people would really know if its a big fish for that area or not. What people DO know is in the grand scheme of things, a 43" fish is NOT a large fish, when they can grow 3x that size (weight not length).
What about if someone posts a picture of a 48" from lake x? Is it a trophy now?
Point is they all the fish above can be trophies to different people, but I see no harm in stating that a 42" fish is a solid fish, with the potential to grow into something bigger.
I have read several times through out this thread that it is common on these boards to hear people belittle someones catch, whether it be 40", 48" or whatever, and quite frankly I haven't seen that. I'm not saying that there isn't a random "guest" who throws pot shots out just to be a jag, but for the majority of people that post here I feel everyone is very supportive in offering congratulations. | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Yes a zillion... do you have any idea how many 52 incher are caught out of St. Clair alone???
Then add in ALL of canada...
Then add in the HUGE rivers systems...
Then add in MN
Then WI
Yes, a zillion 52 inchers have been caught. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Is a 48" a big? Maybe to some people yes, to others no. '
There you have it.
Should those to whom a 48" fish is not a big fish set that bar, or should the reality of how many and where there ARE 48" fish available? Media focuses on NEWS, and this place is no different; you, our visitor, report the 'news' every day. NEWS is a 54" fish, because that's cool and huige and everyone imagines themselves catching one some day. But a 48" fish out of Spider would be BIG news locally, and that needs to be accepted and understood by the rest of the 'muskie culture' or the very fabric of what made this sport so popular over the last few years might just start tearing. | |
| | |
|
I would venture a guess that less than 5% of the muskie fishermen in the world have caught a legit 52"er.
I know for a fact in my MI club over 50% of our members have at least one 50-51"er, but above that the numbers go down real fast.
Anyway, this is getting silly on some levels.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lax Contest:
650 total big fish entries and 31585.1 total inches (2,632.08 feet) of muskie in this database
48.5" average
About 136 anglers have registered a fish over 50" since the database began
36 have registered 5 fish or more
Trophymuskie has the largest overall average of those who have registered 5 fish or more at 51.5
Considering the number of anglers, number of fish caught and entered, and areas from which those fish came, I'd say a TRUE trophy class fish starts at 46" and runs to 57" for a MONSTER.
Maybe that beginning 'big fish status' set at 45" is dead on? It appears that most of those entering more than one fish had an average over 46.
Last fall at the FLW Chamopionship, Mr. Lindner told me he thinks the Lax Contest images represent one of the largest databases of large fish pictures out there. I'd tend to agree. Is that to be used to set any 'bar'? Probably too small a statistical base at this point, but it shows what's being caught out there.
I don't think this discussion is 'silly', and would encourage anyone who does to look at the numbers. I'd say with 4200 views on a thread that's a couple days old and nearly three times that many page views SOMEONE is interested. Going back a few pages, the busiest but now off the front threads are:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39...
And:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39...
See the link to this discussion?
| |
| | |
| I would 100% agree with JS ...less than 5% maybe even 1 or 2% of the musky fishing population have legit 52's.
I have to disagree with you there Htrain...do you yourself have one over 52"? | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I am not talking about the percentage of people with fish over 52.
I am talking about the NUMBER of 52's caught.
There is a pretty big difference. | |
| | |
| I agree, there, though not quite with the zillions number..what is a zillion anyway?
there are a lot over 52 caught yes, but it's by a very small number of guides/top fishermen across the musky land
there are plenty of guys that take multiple trips to those "easy" waters you speak of each year and never ever come home with one over 50"
to some degree the media, even sites like this make it seem easy to go there and get a 50. but how many of us really do?????
I would agree with SWorrall that the lax contest is an awesome big fish data base...i'm fortunate and lucky to have ... a few in it..
| |
| | |
|
People should be proud of their accomplishments, and everyone was proud to catch a 40"er at one point, or at many points in their muskie fishing careers.
But to sit and argue about what constitutes a trophy is an argument that will never end, because no one answer is right.
Tell you what, if we didn't raise the bar on trophy status, would we see higher size limits in Canada, and now MN?
There are many, many positives to raising the bar on what contitutes a trophy muskie, and those are being overlooked here.
I don't see deer hunting "coming apart at the seams" because all the hunting shows depict killing deer that most hunters will never be able to kill themselves.
Just like in muskie fishing, these shows glorify places that most can't go to, and show deer most can't get a chance to kill.
I don't see the deer hunters needing a self-help group to overcome this problem.
The perception of trophy, and what it means isn't any different in the muskie world than in other areas of game and fish.
I just don't see this doomsday scenario that is being potrayed.
Sorry.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 299
| MikeHulbert - 2/12/2008 6:41 AM
I don't think a 41 incher is every a trophy...no matter where it came from.
Anything over 45 is a nice fish.
But a trophy is a "TROPHY"...which means it is BIG...not NICE...45 is nice, 50+ is a trophy, anything over 53 is a really really nice trophy.
This is the best statement on this thread. Any veteran of this sport on this board should be in complete agreement with it. Trophy proportions are based on a species maximum growth potential, not where you caught. These fish can grow to 60+ inches, which is a 1/3 longer than a 40" fish, and likely would weigh 3X the amount of that 40 incher.
I love every size muskie, but 50" is the magic number for this species. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so ... what constitutes a rat then ... for me it's anything under like 45" ... yep, they're fun to catch but a disappointment based on what i'm trying to catch unless of-course it's in competition.
that's why you'll see me fishing where and how i do ... lots of people fishing the middle of the lake on deeper structure go nuts fishing with me and after casting what they think is the dead sea abyss want desperately to get to a weed edge or shorline to cast visually at something. my usual partner Andy Grimm ... likes to fish the same way i do and because of that we don't put as many numbers in the boat but when we do get a shot it's usually what we want to get a picture of.
so, as another side of this trophy discussion ... are you fishing to "fish" or are you out there trying to find the biggest fish? ... on many waters ... there is a distinct difference.
to me ... i'd rather come away with nothing and have a shot at something big than catch a few small fish ... but, that's my preference ... what's yours? | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| Fishboy19 - 2/14/2008 1:44 PM
MikeHulbert - 2/12/2008 6:41 AM
I don't think a 41 incher is every a trophy...no matter where it came from.
Anything over 45 is a nice fish.
But a trophy is a "TROPHY"...which means it is BIG...not NICE...45 is nice, 50+ is a trophy, anything over 53 is a really really nice trophy.
This is the best statement on this thread. Any veteran of this sport on this board should be in complete agreement with it. Trophy proportions are based on a species maximum growth potential, not where you caught. These fish can grow to 60+ inches, which is a 1/3 longer than a 40" fish, and likely would weigh 3X the amount of that 40 incher.
I love every size muskie, but 50" is the magic number for this species.
And I disagree. Not all of them can grow to 60"+. Very few will. They are limited reginally, by genetics, and by the quality of the water they are in.
I think, as I stated previously, that a true trophy is attached to the water it came from.
As well, I've seen 46" fish that were heavier than many of the 50" fish I've seen. Let's call oranges oranges here. Because that 46" fish isn't 4 inches longer, it isn't a tophy? That's crap. Given that it has more girth, and is heavier than many of it's 50" counterparts.
IMO, the point of this thread is lost on some. Not being spiteful or snide, but you keep arguing against the point that you continually prove. There are several in here that continue down that same path.
| |
| | |
| I totally disagree whooligan..just like in big buck hunting they have P&Y and B&C minimums to be met for your buck to be considered as a "trophy" buck in those ...a 46" fish regardless of where it came from just isn't a trophy...sure it can be a special fish, a great fish, and yes even big, but a trophy? just because it came from waters where 46" is at the highest end of the spectrum? no way...
| |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | Thank You JS! AMEN!
If you are considering a "book" for people to register trophies and are going to set a limit, be careful what you ask for because you may get it. If you set the trophy level too low, the perception will be that we as musky anglers are happy with fish over that size. Not all will agree and some may even say who are the poor, average Joe's out there to define what a trophy is? (Just the opposite of the big name guides, media personalities, etc...). I have big dreams of a 60 incher and someday I hope to catch one of those 57 inchers that was released and grew some more. Don't sell yourself or us as the musky angling public short!
I am not saying that you might not have a good idea here but need to know more specifics about your preconceived ideas to comment specifically on them.
I look at the posts of the big fish pictures for the same reason I look at the cover of Bowhunter Magazine. Entertainment. When I see a picture of a big buck I say to myself, "man I am gonna get me one of those someday". Same thing with a big fish picture. I don't dream about catching a 45 incher most of the time. I normally have dreams about something over 55 inches (some call them nightmares) LOL. I don't expect to catch a 50 everytime I go out and I am pumped about catching a 45 inch fish but I am concerned that you may be looking to set a limit for something that people may not even want. If your dreams are totally based on reality I pity you. A man who has no dreams has nothing - I think I heard that somewhere once. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | bn - 2/14/2008 2:02 PM
I totally disagree whooligan..just like in big buck hunting they have P&Y and B&C minimums to be met for your buck to be considered as a "trophy" buck in those ...a 46" fish regardless of where it came from just isn't a trophy...sure it can be a special fish, a great fish, and yes even big, but a trophy? just because it came from waters where 46" is at the highest end of the spectrum? no way...
BN, then what is a trophy to you? I think Whooligan is onto something. Yes, P&Y and B&C have minimums. For P&Y, that is 125 inches to qualify for the books, B&C is 170 I think. So what size muskie would be equal or relevant to a P&Y buck? Heck, a 125 P&Y buck has got to be like a 45 incher or even less maybe.
Edited by Merckid 2/14/2008 2:10 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Why does a trophy need to be a size that everyone has a chance to obtain? Shouldnt a trophy be something rare and something that isnt always the easiest thing to catch? Sure some will get lucky and get into one early. Take me for example, I have a 50 and a 51 to my name. I feel very fortunate to have caught them. Am I now a great angler? Heck no, far from it. One can be a successful fisherman without having a trophy to his or her name.
A trophy is something not all can achieve. Take a look at the NFL, every team competes for the Vince Lombardi Trophy, not every team has a Vince Lombardi Trophy to hang there hat on, take a look at the Vikings But should we now rearrange the system so every team can get a trophy so no one feels bad. What about the fans, dont they deserve to see there team win a trophy? Arent we all out on the water competing for that one fish? Some just have better access to bigger fish, just as some teams have better access to better players.
Now I realize that comparing musky fishing to the NFL is like comparing Pineapples to Kumquats but in my head the principle is there....maybe I'm wrong and should put my waders back on as I missed the boat and they took the dock out...who knows
| |
| | |
| P&Y buck like a 45" or less...that's a stretch...but i see your point regardless...a trophy is just that..it's not a special fish, a noteworthy fish, a big fish, a nice fish, it's a trophy...like JS said, if the trophy bar hadn't been set high would places like Lac Seul , Eagle, and others with C&R or 54" size limits be the fisheries they are today?
48" at a very min is a trophy to me, most likely I think trophy in the world of muskies should be 50" and higher... the trophy bar should be set high and it should not matter what body of water we are talking about...so a small 6 pt buck is a trophy because it came from a county where that is big? get real. no way. | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| Mike, you say there are a lot of 52" fish being caught... Not tryin to be a dick, but compared to WHAT? How many fisheries in how many states are capable of producing a 52" fish, or have done so more than one or two times?
How many anglers are actually catching those fish?
Part of the "problem" that Steve is trying to illustrate here is this perception that 52" fish are common. They might be common in 5 or 10 systems, but if you look at the total range of muskies it paints a different picture.
If you look at the number of muskie anglers vs the number who have caught a 52" muskie, or the number of muskie lakes compared to the number of lakes where 52" muskies have been caught it becomes pretty clear that a 52" muskie is pretty rare.
Take the St Clair, Eagle, Lac Seul, Vermillion, etc. lakes out, take the top 10 muskie destinations out of the mix, and how many 52" Muskies are left?
I think you need to look at it in terms of the big picture. Let's say 100 52" muskies are caught in a year. (Is it even that many?) That's a LOT. One could look at that and believe they are common. But of the total number of muskies caught in a year is 20,000, you're looking at .05% of all catches that are over 52". I'd say the top half of one percent is worthy of being called a 'trophy' no matter who you are or where you fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Totally agree EA, good post! | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Merckid - 2/14/2008 3:08 PM bn - 2/14/2008 2:02 PM I totally disagree whooligan..just like in big buck hunting they have P&Y and B&C minimums to be met for your buck to be considered as a "trophy" buck in those ...a 46" fish regardless of where it came from just isn't a trophy...sure it can be a special fish, a great fish, and yes even big, but a trophy? just because it came from waters where 46" is at the highest end of the spectrum? no way... BN, then what is a trophy to you? I think Whooligan is onto something. Yes, P&Y and B&C have minimums. For P&Y, that is 125 inches to qualify for the books, B&C is 170 I think. So what size muskie would be equal or relevant to a P&Y buck? Heck, a 125 P&Y buck has got to be like a 45 incher or even less maybe. Pointerpride102 - 2/14/2008 3:11 PM Why does a trophy need to be a size that everyone has a chance to obtain? Shouldnt a trophy be something rare and something that isnt always the easiest thing to catch? I hope this doesn't loose the non-hunters... The P&Y analogy is a good one. They have purposely set a number as "trophy" that is attainable nearly all across the range of a species. Sure there are some areas that it is easier to shoot a 125" buck, some people are even going to pass that 125" buck and some areas might never grow a 125" buck. This is exactly what setting a "trophy" size in muskie fishing would have to be and it probably comes in somewhere arounf 45-47". IMO setting 50" as a trophy would be like setting the P&Y minimum at 180". I think we're confusing "trophy" with Holy Grail. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Guys,
This is one of the most intersting and thought provoking discussions I've seen yet.
I think of trophy's two ways:
1-biological
2-social
Biologically, a trophy could be measured much like P & Y or B & C. In fisheries we use a metric called condition (Length vs. weight correlation) to measure the relative fitness of an individual fish compared to others in the same lake, region, state, etc...This is a quantifiable number (100 is considered good-over 100 is considered robust (fat) and under 100 is considered poor). What if we measured a trophy based on relative weight of the upper 95th percentile of all fish caught. This type of "scoring" system puts empahsis on more than one variable (not just on one like length)-creating a level playing field for all. SO, a fish that is 46 and FAT may actually have a better "score" than a 52 that looks like a hose.
Socially, a trophy is based on personal opinion. Mine may be different from yours-and yes sometimes it is based on the body of water I fish. My "trophy" fish is more about weight than length.
Jordan | |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| Perhaps the WRMA should send out participation ribbons to anyone who submits a pic of them with a muskie. Similar to a kid getting a ribbon for playing t-ball, soccer, or milking a goat at a county fair. Ever see a 3 year old milk a goat? To that kid it can be the thrill of a lifetime, however by reading this thread and alot of other nonsensical bickering around here I'm sure that kid would get lambasted for holding the goat's teat the wrong way, squeezing it too hard, or not getting enough milk out.
For the past 2+ years I've conducted informal surveys at boat landings of non-muskie anglers. A majority of which stated that 50 inches is what they considered a trophy muskie. I came to the conclusion that 50 inches isn't as much of a trophy as it is a benchmark of what is perceived to be the golden ring that all wish to acheive. This is useful when considering size limit changes in that most non muskie anglers consider 50 to be an extraordinary fish. Using this as a benchmark we don't have to convince them of what a nice fish is since this perception already exists.
Some water provides a better shot at a 50 but this does not make it an automatic. With 50 being the benchmark that we all have set from the first time we got obsessed with muskies it is a great day when that is reached. Doesn't matter where it happens, you are excited about it. Then to read or hear of guys downplaying a personal accomplishment like this, especially by someone who hasn't sniffed that rung on the ladder himself is beyond me. To me those are guys suffering from a severe case of little man's disease who need to stroke their own fractured egos.
..it's a good thing I have some fresh goat cheese to eat. The stuff is pretty darn tasty and I'll enjoy it, but not as much as the 3 year old kid enjoyed milking the goat to get the milk to make the goat cheese.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| We're not going to all ever agree, but what we can try to do is find a place where half of us are above and half are below...
Judging by the responses to this thread so far, I'd say around 54" is what we all universally agree is a trophy no matter where you go, right?
And, let's say 46" for the minimum of what could be considered a trophy fish in a lot of areas?
Halfway in between that is?
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| MILKING GOATS!!!!!!
That's halarious!
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Many of you apparently don't talk to many newbie or interested anglers looking at the sport.
Deer hunting HAS the bar set by P&Y and B&C. There's LOTS of not very positive talk about shows that are filmed on game farms or are not honest about the fact they are hunting prime trophy areas. Ted Barta is a very popular product of that interesting burp in the culture.
Wait now, you are assuming that the limit set in Ontario at 54" was to set a bar on what is a trophy, and I submit your are incorrect there. I have been told the goal was and is to stop the overharvest of limited numbers of available muskies on those waters almost altogether(no stocking there, remember?), and the 54" limit was set at near the upper confidence limits on those bodies of water accomplishing just that.
If 45" IS the low end and ??? is the upper end, why would anyone assume a minimum is more desirable than the maximum? And, if a system is not able to kick out fish much bigger than 45" at least fish from that water that make the 'book' will be recognized.
Pointer, I believe you are talking about 'record class', not 'trophy class'. Not everyone can shoot a 125 class P&Y either, but at least the minimum is based in reality and most areas have at least a huntable population of 'upper end' bucks that would make the book. Sure, it's easier to make the book with a 130 class buck than a 150 class, why is that such a negative for you? It's a true and accepted representation of what a 'nice buck' really is. 45" is where it SEEMS most folks believe they have a Muskie in the net that is a darned nice fish. 46" might be closer, but not in some areas of the country where muskie angling is a growing sport and others where the fish have been forever but grow too fast and burn out pretty early.
Professional sports...success there (to be a Jordan, for example) is based on personal athletic talent and the team's use of same, and isn't limited by the resource.
To be a 'star' in muskie angling, all one has to do is be reasonably accomplished, hire a few guides and learn the best waters out there, and then fish where the big fish are and fish long and hard. Try being a 'star' in the muskie world fishing JUST the Madison Chain. Who catches the most fish out there on that water every year? What's his name?
bn, it takes a hell of a 6 point buck to make P&Y. You are able to fish pretty much where you want, so your assessment on what the 'bar' should be is no surprise, you are obviously a 'trophy hunter' when it comes to muskies, and you've had some success there, I might add. Sled, what does wanting to catch big fish and not catch small fish have to do with what we are discussing here? I do the same thing, but if I GET a 45, I'm pretty happy. Happier than a 40, much happier than a 38, and way happier than a 32.
And whooligan hit on what Mr. Weeks mentioned. Is a very heavy 46 that weighs 26# out of a 550 acre lake in NE WI that's 20 years old and at peak less a big fish than a 16 year old 50 that weighs 27# out of a 100000 plus acre lake in MN?
This thread leads me to believe the paradigm shift from weight (therefore killed/kept) to length/girth(therefore released) is complete, at least with this crowd. | |
| | |
| just because I've caught some big fish the last few years I don't think has swayed me too much in my thinking...the first year or 2 I got into musky fishing was about 1993, I tangled with what turned out to be a 48"er (neighbor caught and thumped it that fall) on a small, private 200 acre lake that I'm able to still fish today. That fish to me then was HUGE, it made the 12' aluminum boat we were in look small, it was a trophy to me then, it still would be if I were able to catch a 48"er on that lake to this day, 15 yrs later...your relative success or how many years or fish you have under your belt shouldn't move the trophy bar too much....
I had about 5 fish under my belt when I lost that fish, now I have over 300 and I still think the way I thought then...for the most part... | |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | The Pope & Young example should still be looked at like an apples to oranges comparison IMO. The principle is the same but just to keep things in perspective - that club set a benchmark at what size animal harvested is a trophy. Nobody here is suggesting that we set a number at when musky gets harvested but I have some degree of concern that may be one unintended consequence.
Maybe we need to use a different word than "Trophy". After all a trophy is something that you have as a momento of an accomplishment. By the true definition of the word a trophy musky is only reduced to trophy status if you kill it and bring it to a taxidermist to have put on your wall. The "trophy" is the momento you have of the accomplishment such as a picture or a replica but the musky itself is not a trophy unless it is reduced to such!
There are some cool ideas out there already like Master Angler programs that recognize big fish caught in certain regions.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Noting in defining what is a 'big muskie' defines whether it is released or kept; the parallel is not harvest, it's a standard set that we all can accept defining what a nice 'animal'/fish is. Hopefully, the DNR and MNR's of the world set the minumum bar on that issue, and us conservationists shame 'em all out of keeping any. Look at the Lax Contest...replica, right? Encouraging release of all muskies, right?
Separate issues, big time. | |
| | |
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | well said brmusky i agree that if a book does get made it should not be called the trophy book, more so it should be called.... a record book maybe
when i think of p+y or b+c i think of record books not trophy books
my 2 cents
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | I must say I'm in agreement with nearly everything in these latest responses, stimulating comments to help combat the old Man Winter blues.
Edited by Jerry Newman 2/14/2008 10:04 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| sworrall - 2/14/2008 3:07 PM
...Try being a 'star' in the muskie world fishing JUST the Madison Chain. Who catches the most fish out there on that water every year? What's his name?
That would be Jeff Hanson. The guy is a machine.
And it's interesting that you mention the Lax contest. I neglected to enter my 47"er from Eagle in the contest, because I don't consider that particular fish from that particular place to be a trophy. It was a darn nice fish, my biggest ever. But not one that I ever considered worthy of a replica on the wall. Now maybe that makes me stupid for not taking the chance at getting a replica I don't have to pay for, I don't know. But I feel that 47" is a nice fish on the way to the one that I will get a replica of and call a trophy, and I also feel like I've got a pretty good shot at making that happen.
Edited by esoxaddict 2/14/2008 3:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Steve,
Maybe we could get those active on this board to list length and girth (estimated or measured) from fish they caught (lets say the five longest fish from last year). I'll use the weight calculator on this site to estimate weight. Also, indicate where the fish was caught (state will do). Once compiled, I could calculate some relative weights and possibly answer this discussion scientifically based on state. Steve, could you compile that data and get a spreadsheet to me?
Any interest guys???
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/14/2008 3:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I said nothing about deer hunting. I'm not a deer hunter and couldnt tell you what qualifies a trophy buck. I just look at the antlers, if there are a lot I assume its a trophy, if there arent so many I say cool they got a buck, good for them. I do something similar with fish, if it is really long and has a big belly, I say WOW! And I get the itch to get out and chase one. If I see a 45, I say "Awesome, great fish." I still get the itch to go chase one. If I see someone with a 32, I say "Great job, congrats on the catch." In no way does that take away from any angler. I'm with you, if I catch a 45 I'm exstatic, snap a pic and send it back! If I catch a 40 I'm still pertty exstatic, snap a photo and send it back! If I catch a 27.5 I'm happy, have a good laugh, thank the fish for the fun and send it back.
I have to agree with Ulbian that I'm getting the feeling we need to make sure everyone can say they have that 'trophy'. And I would agree with the sentiment of the goat milking participation ribbon or the everyone who plays T Ball gets a trophy, so no one feels like they mean less to the sport. I understand the point that the perception is being made that a ton of 50+ get caught when in reality it is how publicised these fish are, and how very few anglers are actually catching them. But shouldnt we strive to catch a fish like the one's they are getting on the big fish water? Maybe that will require budgeting some money to get to a big fish water. Save up for a few trips to big fish water and try and make the best of it.
If a newbie feels he or she needs to catch a fish equal to the caliber of those being caught on the Trophy waters, I think that just shows that they are newbies. If they get into the sport and become serious about it they will understand that some lakes just dont produce those sized fish. There is nothing wrong with catching a smaller fish, I dont think one person has said that in this thread.
One point JS brought up was if we are lowering the standard of a trophy for given water bodies, we are going against the idea of higher size limits. No not all lakes can support those higher size limits. But if we say a 45 is a trophy for an area, and someone new catches one and considers it a trophy there is a chance that fish gets whacked, it never has a chance to get bigger, possibly reach that 50 inch mark. Maybe that is the reason some places dont produce fish in the 50 inch caliber, because those smaller fish are viewed as trophies and become skin mounts.
I think in todays day and age some people need to develop a bit thicker skin, to bounce off some of the comments of people who try to diminish their catch. Fishing shouldnt be about comparing yourself to what some guy is doing up on Mille Lacs, enjoy what you catch, have fun. You dont need to land a 50 inch fish to have fun. I had a blast with 27.5 inch fish out in Utah. Sorno and I were out with a guy who couldnt even cast a baitcaster at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day he had a 42 inch tiger to his name. Do I now feel cheated because he is in a league well above me because of the 42? Heck no. I think I'm rambling here now, so I'll just stop. Just have fun fishing, thats all a newbie needs to know. | |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | There is no way that fish was that big! LOL
Well, as scientific as it could be in February with a bunch of guys waiting for the ice to melt! | |
| | |
| Very longwinded, not getting anywhere thread.
Just because its your PB does not make it a trophy. maybe like Hulbert said its "special" but a trophy, no.
IMO, a 50 is still the mark i go for. IT drives me to a decision on where i spend my time fishing. IF i want action i will fish for bass. otherwise i am hunting for a pig. not a 34 or 36 or even a 40 incher. If i catch one, great. but 45 and plus is what gets me going and 50 is the trophy for me no matter where i am. If i took a vacation to a place that never kicked out big fish then that is my choice, not an excuse. So for those of you who look down at MN 50+inchers and think that anything short of that is a trophy than keep fishing where you fish and leave the REAL big ones for those of us who want them.
But to those saying a 41 or even a 45 is the same as a 50 or 52 on Mille Lacs or vermillion, not even close. If they were, vacationers would stay in their respective areas.
IF you are hunting for smaller fish,or fish on a body of water that does not pump out some biggies, do not wait for people to pat you on the back and say "nice Trophy"
This is all we need now.
44 x 20, but I caught it from a small wisco lake.
52 x 23, but HE got it from Mille Lacs.
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | sworrall - 2/14/2008 3:07 PM
To be a 'star' in muskie angling, all one has to do is be reasonably accomplished, hire a few guides and learn the best waters out there, and then fish where the big fish are and fish long and hard. Try being a 'star' in the muskie world fishing JUST the Madison Chain. Who catches the most fish out there on that water every year? What's his name?
His name is Jeff Hanson and he is one of the finest angler's anywhere. He has caught one 49" fish out there. I may be wrong but I think that is his only fish over 47 in Madison. He has caught more 45-46" fish out there than anybody else. If he lived near "trophy" waters everybody would know his name.
All of the "trophy" talk has diluted the original thought of the thread in my opinion. Mr. Hanson's 49" fish is a major accomplishment, many here would not consider it a trophy but on the Yahara Chain it most definitely is. We have a number of excellent anglers in our club but Mr. Hanson is the best. | |
| | |
| He's the best on the madison chain..but the best angler? does he do as well if you put him on Mille Lacs next season as say Lee ?
doubt it...great angler ..but calling anyone the best is a bit subjective in musky fishing..and once you put anyone on a pedestal you set yourself up for never attaining that same level of success...imo.
he's the best over the course of the season..but are there days where some boats on the water catch bigger and more..you bet...but over the course of the season we all know he puts in more hours than anyone and boats more fish.... | |
| | |
| the DNR and other groups have surveyed anglers about what they consider to be the size of a "trophy" muskie. if i recall correctly, the results were 50".
a pretty common discussion is whether or not someone has caught a 50" fish. it's a generally accepted trophy goal regardless of location, even if your location doesn't produce as many of them as some other place.
the Lax contest's entry point minimum is 45" and the database is chock full of big fish from places all across the muskie's range. it's full of big fish, not all of which would or should be considered "trophy" class, imho.
Jason Hammernick, famous guide and MMTT tournament Angler of the Year registered 150 fish with Muskies Inc in 2007: 53 fish were over 45". 16 of those fish were over 50". that's 35% over 45", and 10% over 50".
of those 150 fish, 19 were from Webster Lake, IN. only 1 of them was over 45". one of the world's top anglers manages only 5% over 45" on those waters.
obviously, most of his large fish were primarily caught from Mille Lacs and Vermilion in MN. almost 40% of his MN fish were over 45"!
(Mike, do your IN vs MN numbers approximate Jason's?)
clearly, there's a very very significant distinction between what's possible between those different lakes and areas. however, grading on the curve doesn't help anyone, and in the long run it hurts everyone. it "dumbs down" the truly special accomplishments by the few who have the means and ability to seek out those truly special fish. i can't fish those MN waters as often as people who live nearby them, but i sure don't resent them their opportunities, i'm happy for them!
when i fish in southern WI i simply accept the reality that it's essentially impossible that i'm going to catch what i consider a trophy fish (50"+), because i'm not fishing on trophy waters. that doesn't diminish the fish i catch in any way, it's just reality.
currently there is no P&Y or B&C group for muskie fishing. no one is the arbiter of what is and what isn't a trophy fish.
if someone, for whatever reason, feels the need to quantify the term "trophy", setting it at 45" (or wherever) won't stop the comparisons to bigger fish. a certain minimum standard is meaningless without ACTION to celebrate achieving it. (for example getting a certificate from a record organization.)
as a community here on MuskieFirst, i think we do a pretty good job of taking the time to congratulate and celebrate special, non-trophy catches whenever someone posts a picture or tells a story. i believe we do take action in that way.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Setting a reasonable level where one can expect respectability doesn't negate or diminish any exceptional fish and isn't a 'grade'; on the contrary. To suggest it might is nothing short of absolute proof we make our -what-is-a-trophy decisions based on nothing at all, and everything at the same time. If a 45 JUST makes the 'book', a 46" is bigger, and a 56 is WAY bigger.
bn indicates I am not all that far off the mark describing this dichotomy as well.
| |
| | |
|
What exactly is the point of setting a "reasonable level where one can expect respectability"?
None of the anglers I know or fish with care about being respected by the masses, or about being judged on thier catches.
They just care about doing what they love to do.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | For the guy that can spend over 150 days on the water a trophy may be different then a guy who spends 10. Its important to look at it from everyones shoes. For those of you that get the 150 days plus I should hope you get a few 50's. Time on the water equals more fish caught, even for a less experienced angler. I think with some of the expectations set here by others are are a bit extreme. Chill pills need to be handed out.
Pfeiff
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Did someone say they shake off 100's of 40's every year? Lord give me strength.
Thats just way too funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Pfeiff
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
I bet you'd watch the database, though... | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS "WHAT IS A TRUE TROPHY?" The answer shouldn't matter if you fish 10 days a year or 250 days a year. When you put the word "TRUE" in there, then you throw out all other variables.
| |
| | |
| Honestly, I don't do much data-base searching, even with the Lunge Log.
That's probably because I already have a handle on what's happening where I'm fishing. I tend to get info directly when I do need it.
Data-bases do have a lot of info to offer, and can be very useful.
I still just don't see why you need to combine them with contests, or rewards.
But that's just me.
One thing about expectations. Guys like Mike H and others don't have "unrealistic" expectations. They know the possibilities, and go after them.
Expectations are only unreal if you don't have the means to follow them through.
JS | |
| | |
| every one of you are under arrest and suspended from posting from one year! | |
| | |
| every one of you are under arrest and suspended from posting from one year!
sweet freedom.
| |
| | |
| AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS "WHAT IS A TRUE TROPHY?" The answer shouldn't matter if you fish 10 days a year or 250 days a year. When you put the word "TRUE" in there, then you throw out all other variables.
as i've said before, i agree with Mike on this and "true" trophy, irregardless of place or time is somewhere in the low-mid 50" range in my opinion.
it is also worth recognizing the accomplishments of anglers on waters that simply don't produce monster fish. call it "trophy", call it "special"...whatever...catching the biggest fish in the pond is hard to do and worth celebrating.
so perhaps a more focused question would be something like, "what is a noteworthy muskie in your area?"
how would you answer that?
where i fish in/around Madison, i'd say 46"+
where i fish in northern WI, i'd say 47"+
where i fish in Minnesota, i'd say 51"+
i based my ideas on these sizes on the thought that a "local trophy" fish shouldn't be something that most anglers do on those waters every year. it small enough to be possible on those waters, but big enough to make it a special fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Several interesting comments that I have combined and wish to comment on:
Fishboy19 said: "Trophy proportions are based on a species maximum growth potential, not where you caught. These fish can grow to 60+ inches, which is a 1/3 longer than a 40" fish, and likely would weigh 3X the amount of that 40 incher."
Larry: While this is indeed true for the Muskellunge “species”, there are MANY populations of muskies throughout North America where it is not true, almost all in landlocked or southern part of the range situations where northern pike are absent.
Whoolligan said: "And I disagree. Not all of them can grow to 60"+. Very few will. They are limited reginally, by genetics, and by the quality of the water they are in.
I think, as I stated previously, that a true trophy is attached to the water it came from.
As well, I've seen 46" fish that were heavier than many of the 50" fish I've seen. Let's call oranges oranges here. Because that 46" fish isn't 4 inches longer, it isn't a tophy?"
Larry: Even in waters where 60” + growth is “possible” very few ever attain that size. Whoolligan makes a very valid point with his weight comment. After all, the “Holy Grail” of our sport is the World Record (whichever one you choose to accept) and that is determined soley by weight. Muskellunge catch and release has basically created a whole new ball game…one measured only by length (at this point).
brmusky said: "I have big dreams of a 60 incher and someday I hope to catch one of those 57 inchers that was released and grew some more. Don't sell yourself or us as the musky angling public short!"
Larry: Herein lies possibly the TRUE defination of what really is a TRUE TROPHY. It may be that the ULTIMATE muskie is the truest trophy in the “big picture” but everyone has their own personal idea of what a trophy is to them. Whether it be the World Record by weight or one of those rare specimen’s that grow to a length over 57 inches or indeed the even rarer 60 inches.
Pointerpride102 said: "Why does a trophy need to be a size that everyone has a chance to obtain? Shouldnt a trophy be something rare and something that isnt always the easiest thing to catch?"
Larry: I tend to agree here IF the entire muskie range is included overall, however, as has been said several times, any one PERSON’S “trophy” is in the eyes of the beholder regardless of where they are able to fish.
Jordan Weeks said: "Biologically, a trophy could be measured much like P & Y or B & C. In fisheries we use a metric called condition (Length vs. weight correlation) to measure the relative fitness of an individual fish compared to others in the same lake, region, state, etc...This is a quantifiable number (100 is considered good-over 100 is considered robust (fat) and under 100 is considered poor). What if we measured a trophy based on relative weight of the upper 95th percentile of all fish caught. This type of "scoring" system puts empahsis on more than one variable (not just on one like length)-creating a level playing field for all. SO, a fish that is 46 and FAT may actually have a better "score" than a 52 that looks like a hose.
Socially, a trophy is based on personal opinion. Mine may be different from yours-and yes sometimes it is based on the body of water I fish. My "trophy" fish is more about weight than length."
Larry: Initially I had thought that comparisons to deer rack records was off the mark, but if only the “release” measurements were considered, it could be a fair comparison. Catch and release has created a whole new set of things to think about when weight is not normally obtained (note: there is currently new thinking that a quick weight with the fish in the net and reduced handling without trying to take length and girth measurements and lots of out of the water photos, may help to reduce post release mortality). As Jordan noted, HIS personal opinion about a trophy is sometimes based on fish weight and not length. His length vs. weight corelation could indeed put all waters on a more even playing field with regard to comparisons, but that won’t change perceptions of what is an ultimate trophy, whether it be length or weight.
Ulbian said: "For the past 2+ years I've conducted informal surveys at boat landings of non-muskie anglers. A majority of which stated that 50 inches is what they considered a trophy muskie. I came to the conclusion that 50 inches isn't as much of a trophy as it is a benchmark of what is perceived to be the golden ring that all wish to acheive. This is useful when considering size limit changes in that most non muskie anglers consider 50 to be an extraordinary fish. Using this as a benchmark we don't have to convince them of what a nice fish is since this perception already exists."
Larry: The WDNR has found this 50” benchmark to also be what the majority of anglers consider a trophy muskie and Ulbian’s comment supports my previous statement of the majority of anglers PERCEPTION is in this regard, waterbody capability notwithstanding.
To address what I believe Mr. Worrall has been trying to relate to all, if I intrepret it correctly, is just because “perception” indicates that 50” may be the trophy benchmark, it certainly does not diminish ANY SIZE MUSKIE that is in the upper confidence limits of the waterbody that it was caught from.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/15/2008 8:39 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | steve ... the answer to your question.
i thought that a question of tactical fishing as a pattern and a strategy (for larger fish) was relevant. a high percentage of musky fishermen bypass altogether fishing areas and using tactics that might otherwise catch bigger fish and that those that do put these times, locations and presentations to use show results very different than the average angler. the first piece of evidence i would throw out there is the most recent badfish outdoors muskie madness III video.
people i've learned from and shared this view with include ... agrimm, bn, jlong, johannes, joey rozanski, gordie hastreter (sp?), mark lijewski, mike hulbert, kevin cochran, cal ritchie ...
i believe this list of people and you could add many more ... fish differently than most, show consistent results on varieties of waters they fish and target the <5% fish in the pool and catch them successfully year in and year out.
the discussion of this thread has been around what is a true trophy. i'm suggesting that as there are distinctions of true trophy fish ... there is also a distinction in the tactics and goals of true trophy fishermen.
so, based on the above ... i thought it might be relevent to the discussion. | |
| | |
| "people i've learned from and shared this view with include ... agrimm, bn, jlong, johannes, joey rozanski, gordie hastreter (sp?), mark lijewski, mike hulbert, kevin cochran, cal ritchie ... "
But isn't there some coincidence that these people seem to fish trophy waters as their destinations (Jlong, agrimm, Johannes, agrimm) where they live and guide (Kevin, Cal) or where they go for their summer seasons of guiding (Mike H)? That isnt to say that these aren't skilled "sticks" in their own rights, but the trophy fish they catch, they catch seem to catch on openly identified "tophy waters"? Again, that isnt to say they arent accomplished anglers, but to say that they catch these great fish soley because they fish in some different, higher, way makes them trohphy fisherman, discounts that they are catching these fish on waters where trophies exist. | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Coinedance...
Maybe a little, but where I do most of my fishing the general public catches a lot of 28-38 inchers. I don't even want to catch those fish. I try and target the bigger fish. When you can carry an avg. of over 40 inches in Indiana, you are definately catching alot of big fish for Indiana (45-48 inchers) I'm not saying that I am simply the best...but I have yet to see as many big fish photos from Indiana, which is home of the 28-38 incher. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled, what you are saying is that those anglers...and you...are 'trophy hunters'. I get that...but that segment of the sport is NOT a 'high percentage'. If it was, the waters your group targets would be quite a bit more crowded.
Larry, thanks. I'm also saying that IF there was a free to use, incentive based , solid database for released muskies out there the what is considered a big fish in many areas (let's say it's done by watershed) could be different than the perception might be today. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | WOW!!! I read this entire thread last night and my BRAIN still hurts. I did it right before I went to bed big mistake.
I think some of my thoughts on the subject are finally straight.
First I think it’s important to read Steve’s first post entirely this topic isn’t only about “What IS a TRUE Trophy Muskie”, there is lots more to that first questions.
I think Jordan summed it up best with his two way to look at it.
1) Biological Trophy – Very much geographicly determined.
2) Social Trophy – Very much media driven, and very dependent on HOW much the Angler knows about the sport.
Fundamentally I think the above is the main reason why Fishermen and Biologist have a hard time getting on the same page. Most fishermen don’t want to hear about biological reasons they care more about the social implications, and vice versa. This makes the politics very difficult.
Socially tophy still can be all over the map. Think of Grandpa Joe spending all his time on one lake, only reading the local paper. Gramps may have caught 1000 muskies in his life time, depending on the lake maybe he has one fish over 41 inches, what do you think a trophy is to him? This is the same analogy Steve used when talking about Spider Lake. In the big pictures that 44 inchers isn’t really a trophy, but when you put a local group of anglers that know the water well they can appreciated it for what it is a special fish, which can constitute a trophy to the guy who caught it. Who is someone who doesn’t fish the area to say it’s not a trophy. It’s completely social and VERY subjective.
It also is what it is a Great fish, but not what most would consider a trophy when looking at the big picture. That doesn’t make it any less of a fish, just like Gramps 41+ incher.
At the very beginning Dougj the GURU!, I think summed it up. As to what should be a socially acceptable trophy:
dougj - 2/10/2008 5:04 PM
On the LOTWs I always think anything 48" or better is a true thophy. There are many caught every year that are this big or bigger, but a 48"er from the LOTWs is a true trophy. Lots of people who have fished LOTWs for years are still looking for their first one.
Doug Johnson
Here is a guy who has spent a life time fishing “Trophy” water and he says a 48” is a trophy. When Doug speaks I listen!
I have spent most of my time and energy learning about Wisconsin fisheries and I would lower that bar just a little bit to 47”. Why, because I think a 47” is very rare, but attainable. Look at the southern Wi., look at In., look at Ill, look at Mi.
Personally I think a 45 incher is a little to attainable, I probably catch one every 3 years or so from my home water. If I fished more I would get more. 47s are just a little harder to come by.
The BAR used to be set at 30 pounds, now because of C&R we have to use length. But I think 30 pounds is still pretty accurate for the majority of anglers out there. And remember you can have a 46” 30 pound musky just as you can have a 52” 30 pound musky. It still is all relative.
O-yea there is one other point I didn’t see brought up. There is the fact that as these fish get bigger they do get harder to land after they are hooked up. I think that first big jump is at 30 pounds. It’s much harder to land a 30 pounder, than it is to land a 20 pounder. The fish usually needs to be fought completely different. You can’t just horse it in, or you will loose more than you catch. That should be a factor in this conversation to some extent. I haven’t hooked into a 40 pounder YET, but I bet that’s an even harder fight to win. The more weight the fish has the more advantage it has, I don’t think length factors in much to the fight, at lest when you are talking 5 to 6 inches. A 30 pound 50 incher will fight much the same as a 30 pound 55 incher. But add an extra 10 pounds to that 55 incher and a real battle is on.
If your going to start a book I would have entry start at 46-47 inches, but my social experience is limited to Wisconsin, Michigan, Minn. and LOTW. By the way I think a Mi Master Angler award for musky is 46 inches.
There I got to say my piece even if it is on Page 8.
Also regarding Jeff Hanson, there is no doubt if he fished Mille Lacs like he fishes the Madison Chain EVERYONE would know his name not just Muskie Inc. members. He catches big fish EVERY place he goes. I am pretty sure he has got a Biological Trophy from every body of water where he has fished at least a week. I think he has at least 3 over 47 from Madison, a couple of 50s from Eagle, Multiple 50s from St. Clair, I think some upper 40s from LOTW, and a number of 30pound class fish from Northern Wisconsin. When he travels he travels well.
Jeff has and does fish with some awesome anglers, but from what I have seen he is very adept at learning from these guys and making them and himself better.
Jeff is my younger Cousin and when I started fishing these fish hard 15 years or so ago, I learned almost everything from him, and the way I approach fishing “Trophy” fish is still the way he taught me. In fact many times I need to sit back and say “What would Jeff do in this situation.” That has caught me lots of fish.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Wow, get this much response over this over a defintion of a trophy, hopefully everyone gave their input to MNDNR for improving our fishery.
Definition of Trophy
1-A specimen or part, such as a lion's head, preserved as a token of a successful hunt
2 A memento, as of one's personal achievements
So a trophy is defined by a personnal sense of accomloshment, this goes along with Steve statement that catching a 45" fish from Tigercat, is the same accomplishement as a 50" from Mill Lacs. It is up the eye of the beholder. Yes this fish might night qualify as pesonnel trophy to some, but to others it does, and that is their view, no need to make them feel any less of their accomplishment, we should celebrate their accomplishment.
As a musky group we will never come to general opinion on definition of trophy unless we establish something along the lines of the P&Y or B&C club.
My definition of trophy would be in lines that pending the water you fish, is catching a fish the is the top 5% of the fishes potential for that body of water, for the avid angler. Thus a kid catching a 40" fish on Mill Lacs is still a trophy in his eyes and also would be considered a trophy by me for that person personnel accomplishment.
Troyz | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | One more thing:
This is not the first time this conversation has been had, it happens every day all around the world. The topic is just different.
Define a beautiful woman?
Very different if you live in Wisconsin, New York, Californian or heaven forbid TEXAS. This is going to sound sexist, but at Michigan Tech, when I started school there was a 6 to 1 guy / girl ratio, after a short time we created the Michigan Tech adjusted scale. A 10 on that scale was equal to a 6 or 7 on the Normal scale. Sounds pretty twisted, but we where a product of our environment.
Don’t even get me started talking about airbrushed magazine models, kind of hard for average America to stack up against that, but women sure try. Kind of sounds familiar!
Define a great car?
Again, Midwest = Corvette, California = Lamborghini, Germany=Mercedes or Porch
How about boats?
Everyone’s opinion is the same here on what makes a great boat, and nobody is socially driven to have one rig over another……..RIGHT?
You get my point!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks Mike, you hit it dead on.
In this case, though, if a little hard work is done, we can redirect that social 'more' into a bit more reasonable realm ALL the way across the board, leaving room for those who trophy hunt just big fish on big fish water, those who specialize on waters where a big fish definition is different than that of the trophy hunter, those who fish as recreation and do so mostly for enjoyment of the sport, those who hunt numbers because that's what they enjoy, and alot more.
Of course, this may be just the ticket for those who don't 'care' in the first place, but read every bit of information on Muskies they can get their hands on anyway.
This subject raised some eyebrows, upset a few folks, created several pathways for controversy, and generally indicated how skewed the interpretation of available data can really be when 'socialized'. That was EXACTLY my intent.
Most of the responses here missed the word I accented in the title...TRUE. Define that, please, in Muskie lore context...is it an adjective:
1. In accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.
2. Unswervingly; exactly: The archer aimed true.
3. So as to conform to a type, standard, or pattern.
Or is it an adverb:
1. In accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.
2. Unswervingly; exactly: The archer aimed true.
3. So as to conform to a type, standard, or pattern.
Or is it JUST number 3 of both, with the following quote indicating the possible pitfalls of that definition? I'd like to see it leaning more to number one, both adj. and adv.
Here's a quote that should help everyone see what this old 'devil's advocate' has been getting at the last few days:
Cognitive Processes, Social Mores, and the Accumulation of Data
Program Evaluation and the Status Quo
Nancy Cochran
Northwestern University
Distortion and selective disclosure limit data available to program evaluators, producing a bias that tends to maintain the status quo. Paradoxically, attempts to objectify, regulate, or depersonalize the production of data only increase the potential for distortion. A reliance on the data produced by science is not necessarily a solution. Social science tends to be a self-legitimizing specialty that forces our understanding of social situations into historically accepted categories and relationships without specifying methods for testing the validity of these findings. An awareness of status quo tendencies raises problems for evaluators interested in innovation and change.
Closest parallel I could find to what I see as the challenge here.
| |
| | |
| well...it's important to be careful when applying knowledge out of context from fields outside of one's area of expertise.
as a specialist in human behavior modification, let me assure everyone that people's behavior is generally based on their beliefs, and their beliefs respond poorly to facts. all the "ifs and buts, candy and nuts" from the hard-science types aside, people have an unrelenting ability to ignore objective truth in favor of what "feels" right to them.
the social definition of "trophy" will continue to "feel" a certain way to people regardless of what the facts say about local opportunity. an understanding of what this means on the application end of things goes way beyond a nice quote from the abstract of a tangentially related article. to change people's perceptual beliefs requires developing internal motivation in them to change those beliefs.
so ask yourself...how does one help to create the motivation in people to be open-minded to the possibility that local trophy sizes vary? especially in an information world that includes seeing pictures of bigger fish from other areas? (it's possible, but the answer to this question is important for shaping HOW to get there!)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bullseye, lambeau!
May not be my field of expertise, but I have a few semesters sociology and psychology under the old belt..required for my course of study and elective because I enjoyed it...yeah I know, I'm whacked. And the direct reference in the quote I used was posted as a parallel which I believe applies nicely to make the point.
By assisting in developing a database voluntarily (with, of course, proper incentive) provided by the very folks you are referring to. Images of the fish with each data entry, and as much data from each as the angler is willing to provide. NO incentive to exaggerate the fish's length or girth. Strong incentive to add as many 45" plus fish as one can catch in a year, and much much more we are looking into as we speak.
Most importantly, the database would indicate the watershed (not the lake or river unless volunteered) each fish was CPR'd from, the anglers home state, and more allowing for regional quantification.
Wouldn't be an overnight deal, that's for sure.
As you know very well, just getting folk's attention in the first place is a process, not an event. | |
| | |
Posts: 8834
| Mike, I don't think changing OUR beliefs is the objective here -- it's changing the beliefs that we invoke on the new anglers to the sport, especially the younger folks. It's making sure that our personal bias remains personal, and doesn't cloud the perceptions of those who have yet to develop any expectations on their own.
Regardless of what MY opinion might be on what a " TRUE trophy" is, it's how I present myself to an angler looking for support, guidance, instruction, etc. that is important. If I see someone catch their first muskie, a 44" fish, from say.... Twin Valley, for example. I can say:
"WOW, NICE FISH! It took me three years before I caught one that big, and let me tell you, in a lake like this, in this part of the country man, they probably don't get much bigger than that. That ones FAT too! Look like you're ready for Canada!"
That's reality. I can also say:
"Nice fish. I wouldn't call it a trophy, like that 55"er so-and-so got. That thing could eat a fish like this!"
That's reality too. (well, ok maybe not the eating part)
But in leaving out the fact that 44" for that lake, or that half of the state for that matter, is on the upper end of what you might expect to catch, I've essentially diminished that accomplishment.
I'm not necessarily open minded. I'm not necessarily changing MY definition of a trophy, or how I feel about a particular size of fish. But two different ways of communicating to that angler what I feel to be accurate can have dramatically different results.
Not saying we should be awarding medals to the guy that goes to Vermillion for a week and catches a 35, but if the future of muskie fishing depends on a continual influx of new anglers, it behooves us to consider if what we are projecting out there represents reality or not, and if it serves to encourage others or discourage them. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Skewing of the data, even if it is accurate data:
Catching up again with more great posts another thought occurred to me.
In the days of old, when fish were bonked and Lake X's weren't as prevelant as today, it was reasonably easy (ok it took a bit of work) to learn where one should go to catch a big muskie. Fish were caught, kept and used for publicity in most cases. People like me write books and prepare lists of histories big muskies, making the learning "where" easier.
Today, there is far more secrecy among muskie anglers. With far more anglers in the "game" many feel a need to keep quiet about where their fish was caught even though they have no problem showing pictures. In a few cases, Mille Lacs being the most obvious currently, just about everyone who muskie fishes seriously and are still breathing knows about it. Hence, the continued publicity of that one body of water is tremendously higher than any other. And therefore too is pressure. Because of the propensity to keep one's favorite water quiet, we don't know if there are other Mille Lac's out there or not, bigger or smaller in size!
I would venture to say, that with catch and release having been prevelant now for over 20 years, that there are many waterbodies out there that might compete with Mille Lacs if the number of "fish per acre of water caught" is the measuring stick. Doesn't necessarily have to be a huge body of water. Smaller waters would necessitate even tighter lips as a far more limited number of fish are available to be caught.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, that regardless of the size of the data set it is only as accurate as the input. I believe in the past and even more so lately, Lake X fish have been claimed as having been caught in Lake Y to throw people off the track. It has always been a problem in angler surveys and angler diaries as well.
Would what Steve proposes work? Might if “watersheds” were used rather than actual lakes, but even then some will be reluctant.
| |
| | |
Posts: 47
| A mid 40's is a trophy to almost all anglers, just not musky anglers. It depends on who catches the fish. To shake off a mid 40's fish, well that would be the day I move on to bigger and better things. I personally think a 50" or bigger is a giant. But that is just my .02$. | |
| | |
Posts: 376
Location: Lake Vermilion Tower, MN | Holy smokes!,
Somebody is doing way to much thinking here. "It's just fishing man".
Save all this "high brow" analysis for major world problems
and just go fishing.
Is it any wonder why so many non Muskie anglers use the "E" word when describing Muskie anglers? Stop taking yourselves so seriously, you may find that you will enjoy it even more.
I'll take a 45"er any day, trophy or not.
"Ace" | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| It is interesting, Steve, that you bring incentive to the table in such a MASSIVE proportion, especially on a subject such as this. I'm interested, really, in what people would see as incentive enough to "register" their fish, in accordance with the "rules" whatever they may be. I"m also interested in seeing the proportion of the population that would be truthful about their catch, and those that are in debate of another's catch solely on where that catch is registered from.
The other thing I'd be interested in is how many of those guys would squeeze that extra half inch out, in order to stay with the current status quo. I think that the majority would be honest, and call their 42 a 42.
The last thing that would be interesting to me, is that there is still the chance that someone plays a "joke" on another, or goes a little overboard on what they register. That skews the data even further, particularly if you tag it by watershed. (this is something I've been subject to, by a well meaning, but completely misunderstanding personal joke) It would then basically invalidate any sort of real progress that might have been made.
Starting with incentive, however, what would happen? Are we talking about organizational recognition? Are bait manufacturers online with some sort of donation for say, every three fish logged by an individual? Are we, as a community, responsible for rewarding the truth and honesty of our fellow anglers, and trust that they are truthful and honest? Personally, the latter I don't see happening, we don't take someone at their word the way it is already, we've all seen this, seen, that, or have experienced it. We say that there is no way Hulbert shakes off 100s of 40" fish, and laugh at him about it. We also say, in the same sentence that we suppose a Guy could catch 100+ 40' fish a year.
There are too many doubting Thomas, the way I see it, to have a sort of internal database and list of recognition to be self policing. I see it being viable, and valuable, however, if we have the right sort of organizational efforts. I see the largest leap to overcome as the ability to get anglers to participate. I think that's one of the reasons you mention incentive. Historically, even creel surveys are inaccurate, that's just the nature of the beast. That's one major reason for my skepticism. If, however, we (again I use we, because it would be a community effort) are able to garnish active and truthful participation, I see it as being one of the most forward thinking, and very real efforts to qualify the fisheries based on region/watershed. Something that should be done, anyhow.
I guess, aside from my rambling, I can appreciate what has been said, by the detractors and the proponents. I think that its a valuable asset that can be had, if we work together on it, and with that said, would be very happy to get in on the ground floor of something such as this. I think that it would be valuable for coming generations, as well as current day use. | |
| | |
Posts: 144
Location: Green Bay, WI | I agree 100% with guideman. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Couple “Musky Book” is in the works.
Use the existing fish in the Lax contest as a starting point. If you don’t have enough data on the fish ask anglers to go in and modify or add data so water shed can be determined.
Possibly partner with Muskie Inc. existing giant data base of fish. If your looking for fish over 45 the fish that have all the data could maybe bee extracted. If the idea is to have pictures associated with “The Book” then this may not work. But going forward it may be easier if there is a partnership as members would only have register fish in one place.
These two existing data bases would instantly give “The Book” some history. I don’t know if that’s good or bad.
Just make sure the data base is searchable from all different angles. Also instant feed back would be cool. Say you register a 52 incher from the Upper Wisconsin River Basin. Once the fish is logged, you would get a report that tells you how that fish stacks up against other fish caught from the area, and so on. That would be pretty cool and also a pretty cool incentive.
Another incentive idea would be a pool of prizes where the more fish you enter the more chances you get, but size doesn't matter. There would be no incentive to lie about size other than to make the minimum, and I personnaly don't think that will be a problem.
Just some ideas.
Maybe this should be started as a different thread, as many people will pass this by purly because of the size.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | For anyone intersted here is what our Wisconisn Water Sheds look like. This is how they break the state down for management. I could go for logging a fish caught in a specific water shed even if it was a Lake X fish.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
(GeographicManagementUnits.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
GeographicManagementUnits.jpg (27KB - 215 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guideman and Bobski,
You need to read the thread a bit more carefully, a major portion of the discussion says exactly what you are saying, just not quite the same way. No offense.
Whooligan,
Serious effort, and a major undertaking yes. Possible, even probable a largely accurate database cold be put together, sure. The incentives would be considerable, or I wouldn't think it worth the effort.
| |
| | |
Posts: 350
Location: WESTERN WI | Hmmm....
A True Trophy Musky would have to be a fish over 50 inches regardless of the body of water, I think that is very apparent in today's musky angling society. If a body of water can not produce a 50" fish, then it is not considered a true trophy fishery.
The first thing I think of when I hear or see a 49.5 caught is:
#1. Ugh, only 1/2 an inch away from a trophy fish
#2 At least there honest.
My .02
Edited by Got Esox? 2/16/2008 11:43 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | a zillion 50 inchers caught. I'd like to know where. Do the math! Take 100 years into a zillion and see what number you come up with. You really believe it after seeing the answer,oh well.
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 2/17/2008 7:33 AM
| |
| |
|
