|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | As I was on the road day dreaming last Friday I started thinking about the following scenario, I knew the thread was on the board regarding keeping a record, but I hadn’t read it yet. After reading that thread I became more curious as to what the Muskie Firsters would think about my scenario. So here goes:
Mid summer fishing the Northwest Angle of LOTW, a fisherman ties into a true fish of a lifetime, after a lengthy battle with the fish it is brought into the net. The fish is girthed in the net, in the water, at 32 inches and measured on a bump board at 58 inches. All caught on video tape. A quick crunch of the numbers estimates the weight at 74+/- pounds, taking one inch off the girth still estimate the weight at 69.6 +/- pounds. After much thought with the fish in the net the fisherman says screw it, I put in my time, I release everything, this fish is possibly a world record and for sure a Canadian Record. This would possibly SHUT UP all the controversy over the current World Record. And I want IT, I’m keeping this baby. So in the live well the fish goes with aerator running, just incase a release attempt is made later. Quick stop at the resort to pick up some ice, and the resort owner (if Frank wants to go). Fish is transferred to resort boat, as it has a bigger livewell and handles rough water better, plus angler who caught the fish is shaking like a leaf and shouldn’t drive the boat anymore. Livewell is filled and Ice is placed in the livewell to keep the fish cool. Phone calls are made to try and get Mn DNR and Ontario fisheries personnel to Youngs Bay. Fish is transported to Youngs Bay, once everyone and everything is ready the fish is pulled from the livewell and official weighed and measured on a certified scale in front of witness. Length 58 inches, girth laying on the board, 31.25 inches, weight 68.5 pounds. Fish is DEAD, frozen in a big cooler and shipped in dry ice to Fittante.
Not a World record, but a new Canadian record. So if that story was real how do feel about the way the situation was handled?
Thanks, it’s amazing the things the mind can come up with as we get closer to the Musky season and up coming trips.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | Can you say BONK!!!! I'd do the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. I'm sick of the Louie Spray BS.I just want to see that chapter of the muskie fishing records closed for good. With that said though, if it weren't for that particular record, I wouldn't ever kill any muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1438
| Mike-
End result is, angler decided to do what he has the legal right to do. If that decision is what makes him happy and pisses someone else off, too bad. End result is... the choice is his. If I'm reading right, his intention may have been to release the fish in the first place and attempted to take the steps to accomplish that. He didn't actually decide to keep it until it was dead. Call it a victim of circumstance??
Too many times in this day and age, people make their decisions based on what other people think rather than what they think.
Scott |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | I'd feel a lot better if I remenbered to throw in at least a dozen cans along with the ice for the boat ride. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | You have quite the imagination Mike, lol...
If the whole thing was recorded well on videotape, then I personally would have just released the fish. However if I was fishing in the boat with the angler that *caught* the fish, then I would support whatever they chose to do; release it, or keep it.
While I am an advocate for C&R, I am also an advocate for one's ability to exercise their legal rights. So if the fish was taken legally by my boat partner, and they decided to keep it--so be it.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Well it isn't going to happen...so no big reason to dwell on it...BUT IF it did happen....
I would have let it go. No reason to kill it just to get your name in a book. You have it on film, you have photos.... let her go where she came from. She got that big for a reason. Let her be. |
|
| |
|
| It's their choice...the laws are written the way they are...while i'm 99.9% for release if a guy is within the law, catches a 68 lber and it dies, oh well, it was probalby going to die fairly soon anyway and had plenty of spawning years to pass on it's genes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 109
| Every Angler is different as we all know. For me personally I would have released it since records are not why I fish. But that being said, I believe anglers have the right to keep a trophy fish if it is of legal length.
I would rather see 1 fish kept out of 10,000 as long as the other 9999 are handled properly. What I have often seen in videos from Youtube and on other forums and also Photographs is that many Muskie are mis-treated and do not survive. That to me is a shame. A good release is what should be preached more then 1 guy keeping a possible LEGAL record fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I would let the fish go as it wouild be illegal for me to keep it. I only have an Ontario conservation license which doesn't allow any muskies of any size to be kept. Most muskie fishermen get the conservation license. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| If it was me in that situation, I'd want to know if it was a record. Not that a record fish means a whole lot in the grand scheme of life, but my curiousity would get the best of me. I'd want it weighed. Then I'd let it go, because I'd feel guilty killing it intentionally. If it were someone else? Well, I'd prefer people released big fish. But the laws aren't written based on "I'd prefer", they're written (hopefully) on sound biological scientific research, by people who know a whole lot more than I do, and if they say its ok to harvest that fish, who am I to tell anyone otherwise?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | MoMuskieguy - 4/29/2008 12:34 PM
snip...
I would rather see 1 fish kept out of 10,000 as long as the other 9999 are handled properly. What I have often seen in videos from Youtube and on other forums and also Photographs is that many Muskie are mis-treated and do not survive. That to me is a shame. A good release is what should be preached more then 1 guy keeping a possible LEGAL record fish.
This is an outstanding comment!
The number of muskies harvested is really only the tip of the iceberg--but the part we *don't* see is the total impact that poor handling has on the fishery.
If we really want to protect the musky fisheries on this Continent, let's attack the real issue. Certainly, higher size limits and total C&R fisheries are tools that can be employed to help preserve a fishery. But the real unknown factor is how well we as anglers can spread the word about improved fish handling techniques. I am convinced that this, as much as anything else, will be the most important factor in our sport over the next 5 years.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I bought a hanging scale just in case.
Here is a link:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Digital-Hanging-Fishing-Scale-Luggage-Scales-11...
I like the scale, it is a little small, but well built. It has a metal case. I am waiting to get my calibration weights back from NIST calibration to check the accuracy, but I don't expect any problems. (I am in charge of calibration at work)
I plan on modifying the handle to a long bar for 2 hands. I intend to weigh the fish in the net and subtract the net weight. If this doesn't work very well I might get a cradle just for weighing. I know any measurement with this scale won't hold up as a record, but if I would ever get lucky enough to catch one close, I would know the weight right away. It will help to properly size a fish for a replica too. There is a better chance that I might be able to use it on a friends fish, it might even save a fishes life someday. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2082
| ...Good thing I read ALL the posts I started to type what DJ said
Edited by IAJustin 4/29/2008 12:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Have a scale with you when fishing trophy water, weigh the fish, and keep the fish in the water. Get plenty of pictures and video, then let her go unless she is truly 70 pounds. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MikeHulbert - 4/29/2008 12:07 PM
Well it isn't going to happen...so no big reason to dwell on it...BUT IF it did happen....
I would have let it go. No reason to kill it just to get your name in a book. You have it on film, you have photos.... let her go where she came from. She got that big for a reason. Let her be.
Bingo. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 134
Location: (South of the 218) | She's out there - what YOU choose to do with her when she commits is entirely up to you.
I thought everybody bought the Conservation License nowadays in Ontario. I know I do. - So, that choice would have already been made by ME earlier. I wouldn't have an option on keeping it. Now if I was in good ole' USA and had the opportunity for harvest, then I'd make that choice then.
Oddly enough, I had the "monster Muskie" dream again last night. Honest... I even hit up some of the weight calculators this morning on the web - just in case it was a premonition for '08.
Out
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | What Doug said!
Now if if it were on Pelican......? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | It will happen on Green Bay in the next 10 years.
That is if VHS or something else doesn't mess it up.
Edited by Jomusky 4/29/2008 1:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | THANKS A LOT DougJ!!!!! Shatter my dreams, by reminding me that I also, always, buy a conservation license when I fish Canada. By the way how brilliant is that concept.
And once again Muskie Firsters are proving, they aren’t as crazy as some topics make us appear.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/29/2008 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
| take some good photos and have a replica made. regardless of the WR or something slightly less, I'd rather be the guy who known for releasing a fish worthy of the record, then the guy who felt the need to kill it for the books.
if it was somebody else, I guess deep down I'd like to see the controversey go away, but if it did, it would not be forever. It would do nothing more then provide a few years of silence before claims of 72#s were the norm. |
|
| |
|
|
I agree 100% with the sentiment of rather being known for releasing big fish than killing them.
I don't want to mount one, I don't want to hold a record.
The reason there are record class fish is because guys are letting them go.
We all know the MN record fish have been caught. One by a good friend of mine on Vermillion last year.
Just think if all the guys on Mille Lacs and Vermillion that caught potential record fish would have killed them.
Those guys releasing the big girls deserve medals.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Honestly, Mike, exact scenario I was thinking about last week. Way too much time on my hands until May 24th. Think about it, you would do what you had to do to keep the fish alive and it died. In the end, you end up keeping a true record (although, the big question is what do you do with it? eat it NO...skin mount...replica and throw it in the garbage?). We're talking about a 60 pound plus musky. How many people are really going to hate on you for displacing ol' Louie Spray (who shot the fish in the head with a .22 before he landed it) with a true world record. I'm sorry, but anyone on this site who would have a problem with Mike putting himself in the record books has some issues. I'm sure Mike has never eaten or intentionally killed a fish and neither have I. Every fish goes back forever and when you get THE ONE that everyone has been waiting for, you are a "non-conservationist." It's not about personal glory, it's about setting the true record straight.
By the way, Mike Hulbert, great off-hand tip on Gander Mountain reels with TE handles. Inexpensive way to get a great double 10 reel.
Adam |
|
| |
|
| I agree totally with Tom Betka on this one- "While I am an advocate for C&R, I am also an advocate for one's ability to exercise their legal rights. So if the fish was taken legally by my boat partner, and they decided to keep it--so be it."
I am fully in favor of catch & release, but I also would never fault anyone for keeping legally caught fish. There seems to be a fine line between fishermen who feel the same way, and those who feel every Muskie should be released no matter what the circumstance. Maybe we're making too big a deal out of the whole "record" process and consequently not helping ourselves. I've heard people say they'd "Bonk" what they thought to be the record fish, simply to end the argument once and for all. Maybe they'd feel differently if it wasn't a topic being constantly discussed on message boards and in magazines? Who knows. I do enjoy reading the opinions of others though. Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| I figure if I catch a world record, With all the promotions and all. "I WON'T HAVE TO WORK ANYMORE, AND I COULD FISH MORE" BONK_BONK_BONK...LOL!!!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 250
Location: Pittsburgh, PA | i would keep it but then again i am young and naive so what i say really doesnt matter the only persons who's does is your own so listen to your heart.
Yeah i said that and it was really corny but hey that girl from American Idol said to so maybe its actually great advice |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| BONK! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | Good Night Irene! If I was 100% certain it was a World Record she'd be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
Location: United States | Over the years the size of fish required for me to keep it has steadily increased. I think many people probably have the same experience. With each new personal best comes a new standard and a new decision. Years of experience and increased knowledge of catch and release usually coincides with people waiting for that fish of a lifetime or going with a replica. However, if I TRULY catch that fish of a lifetime - it's coming home.
Edited by AaronSands 4/29/2008 10:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
| A spin off question to the original here. And I'm not passing judgement. This is simply out of curiousity.
For those of you that would keep the record fish in question AND feel that replicas are better than skin mounts...is there any thing that would make you keep the fish other than "the record"?
Me personally, I wouldn't keep it, personal choice. I don't have the desire to put one on the wall, reproduction or skin mount (although I would definitely go graphite IF I was to keep one) and I have no desire to have any fame when it comes to fishing. I'd much rather fly under the radar going unnoticed.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1303
Location: WI | I have no idea what I'd do. Last year I caught a 50", my personal best and let it go without a photo. Even if I thought that I'd keep it, I probably would let it go. I would definately get a picture and video of it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| I would make every effort to release a fish like that. I wouldn't even bother measuring it because I can just post the pictures and let others tell me how big that fish was.
If it does happen to die on me that thing will first pay a visit to a fishery biologist. Alot more could be learned from a fish like that than it would immediately going to get a mount done. Skin mount or replica in this scenario....eh...the best way to remember a trophy like that is in knowing that it could unlock the doors for biologists in understanding more about growing world record class fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | maybe musky boats should be equipped with livewells big enough for the musky to comfortably stay in.....lol then you could get all the required info and let it go....... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | "Fish is DEAD, frozen in a big cooler and shipped in dry ice to Fittante."
Wouldn't many serious musky fishermen ask, "Why Fittante and not Lax?"
That's always a good argument. More fun than any record controversy, that's for sure.
Kevin
Will the mortgage rates ever drop? |
|
| |
|
| Conservation license for me too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Frost | I wish we'd move past the argument concerning the 'keep it because it's your legal right' attitude, that should have died with Louis Spray's generation. Trophy fish, especially world record class fish, are so rare that they, along with their genetics, should be looked at as an invaluable public resource, not an individual angler's shot at glory camoflauged as a way to end the controversy over the current record, our total commitment to C&R is what separates us muskie anglers from the masses |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: On the water | I agree with John Skarie,
I'd rather be known for releasing big fish than killing them!!
What a great quote!!
Tom |
|
| |
|
Posts: 76
| BONK! Would love to see a new record. It would end all the Spray bull.
Edited by IntroC 4/30/2008 7:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | .
Edited by C_Nelson 6/7/2008 8:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | FEVER - 4/30/2008 5:56 AM
I agree with John Skarie,
I'd rather be known for releasing big fish than killing them!!
What a great quote!!
Tom
So there it is. Instead of writing a clear new record into the books, one that is not constantly questioned, it would be viewed as a shame for someone to keep that fish. No pats on the back for the guy who caught it?
If a fish weighs #60, I'm guessing it has had a chance to pass on her incredible genetics about 20+ times previously, and that's only if natural reproduction occurs. Most lakes, it doesn't even happen. Also, if the fish is that old, how much longer does it have to live? I would rather a guy sets a true record 60# fish through angling than the DNR recovering a 61# floater. |
|
| |
|
|
Nobody said it would be viewed as a shame. Nobody said they would look down on another for keeping the record.
I could care less about proving anothers record to be false.
I, and many others anglers just don't want to kill one. It's as simple as that.
Seems a lot of you like to put words into people's mouths and twist meanings to make them look a certain way.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I see divergent opinions, and no twisting of anything at all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 84
| I would let it go. I have the memory, I have the photos, I have the measurements and I can have a replica made. I do not need the dead animal or the approval of others to know and appreciate what I caught. It would be more about the experience to me. If someone else chose to keep the fish, and it is thier legal right, then it would be thier decision. A great idea I learned from a friend last year was he carried a digital bathroom scale in his boat. Just step on it before and after you catch the fish. Now you have a better idea of what you have in your hands without additional harm to the fish.
Rick |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Dont you think it would speak volumes to those that dont understand how important C&R is to musky fishing, if a die hard musky angler released a would be WR?
What is more important to the further preservation of our sport; pounding our chests saying that Spray's 'fraud' is no more, or proclaiming the importance of Catch and Release to the general public who just might not quite understand how important it is?
For me, I'd have to go with the second option. Hard for me to say I practice C&R if I plan on whacking 'The' big one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | Muskyhopeful,
No need to question Fitanti vs Lax, both provide outstanding reproductions and either would be a good choice to send a trophy fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | AFChief - 4/30/2008 10:13 AM
Muskyhopeful,
No need to question Fitanti vs Lax, both provide outstanding reproductions and either would be a good choice to send a trophy fish.
Just a joke, my friend, just a joke. I for one feel threads like this need a bit of levity on occasion. I know I'm in the minority with that opinion, but it amuses me.
Regarding the original thread topic, if I caught a fish that size I would let it go or keep it.
Kevin
Too much pork for just one fork. |
|
| |
|
| let it go...keep it...argue about it...whatever.
MuskyHopeful - 4/30/2008 10:41 AM
Too much pork for just one fork.
My Muskie Culture is on the Skids.
Too Much Pork for Just One Fork
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | LOL.
You just gotta love that Rockabbbiillllyyyy Music. That's what I'm taking about baby.
Kevin
Liquored up and lacquered down, she's got the biggest hair in town. |
|
| |
|
| Pointer- "Dont you think it would speak volumes to those that dont understand how important C&R is to musky fishing, if a die hard musky angler released a would be WR?"
I would make a safe bet that pretty much everyone here is in favor of catch & release and it's importance. We are talking about the possibility of a record fish being caught and kept to legitimize once and for all what fish is the holder of said record. The death of a single fish is not going to diminish what many of us have spent years trying to build.
A few years ago a new record keeping organization was begun. 60lbs is the minimum requirement to enter a fish in their recording system. As of a month or two ago, not a single fish has been registered. This thread to me is about the possible killing of one fish, not countless numbers of fish.
We need to realize that there are different opinions on this matter, and neither viewpoint seems able of convincing the other to change their mind. If someone catches a record fish, or ANY legally caught fish, depending on who catches it, it may find its way back into the lake, or it may find its way into someones livewell. Is anyone here really going to lose sleep over it? I sure wouldn't. My $0.02. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| "Is anyone here really going to lose sleep over it?"
Only if it was someone fishing where I had been earlier in the day, Brad. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
Location: mn | Id take a good pic and Let her go. Id rather be reconized for an unofficial living fish then an official dead record. A big ones is just a bonus. A 30ishx58 would be one heck of a bonus though.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Derrys - 4/30/2008 11:37 AM
Pointer- "Dont you think it would speak volumes to those that dont understand how important C&R is to musky fishing, if a die hard musky angler released a would be WR?"
I would make a safe bet that pretty much everyone here is in favor of catch & release and it's importance.
Maybe, but quite a few would keep that record fish. I understand its 'just one fish', but if a die hard uses that mentality, and claims they are strong advocates for catch and release.....to an outsider looking in doesnt it seem like a sort of hypocritical statement?
How did that fish get to become a WR? If someone would have caught it the year prior and kept it, maybe it wouldnt be that WR size. It still would have been a great fish, and if kept it would have been 'just one fish', but it wouldnt have been able to grow to that record size.
To each their own, but in my eyes I cant say I'm all about catch and release, yet turn around and say, hell yeah I'd bonk a possible record fish.
|
|
| |
|
| I am with Pointer on his view.
Having a possible WR or giant released by a big name guy, even if it were to be his fish of a lifetime would stress the importance of CPR. It would prove to be an example for those who have on a pedistal for their accomplishments in the sport that may discourage weekend warriors from keeping their PB for their skin.
Not a perfect scenario by any means, but the more we hear of giants being released and memorialized thru replicas will only encourage others to do so. |
|
| |
|
| Pointer slipped his post in just ahead of my previous. Again, I'm with him. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| If I was in Canada, and I was absolutely sure it was a world record fsh, you would here the thump in Indiana! I don't get the conservation License, as I like to keep a few eyes and pike to bring home.
Then I'd send it to Rick and Joe, so they can make a mold, and order a replica or three.
But I think, as Jo said, this could happen on Green Bay in the future. And then you'd here the thump at Cave Run!
I practice catch and release, and don't see keeping anything except a record fish. Haven't kept one yet. Chances are pretty good I ain't going to be bonking anything too soon, if ever. And if someone beats me to it, I'll oogle that fish and tell him congrats on a great fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Frost | I fully agree with Pointer as well, and in the scenario as in life there is no guarantee the fish is the world record, so how many 50-60 lbers will get kept by anglers in awe of their fish's size and thinking it's "just one fish," only to find out it's not a world record at all? Guess I just don't see how the world record is so important |
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | MuskyHopeful - 4/30/2008 10:41 AM
AFChief - 4/30/2008 10:13 AM
Muskyhopeful,
No need to question Fitanti vs Lax, both provide outstanding reproductions and either would be a good choice to send a trophy fish.
Just a joke, my friend, just a joke. I for one feel threads like this need a bit of levity on occasion. I know I'm in the minority with that opinion, but it amuses me.
Regarding the original thread topic, if I caught a fish that size I would let it go or keep it.
Kevin
Too much pork for just one fork.
Kevin,
I see the humor. Sorry for being critical...
J |
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | Guest - 4/30/2008 6:51 AM
A spin off question to the original here. And I'm not passing judgement. This is simply out of curiousity.
For those of you that would keep the record fish in question AND feel that replicas are better than skin mounts...is there any thing that would make you keep the fish other than "the record"?
Me personally, I wouldn't keep it, personal choice. I don't have the desire to put one on the wall, reproduction or skin mount (although I would definitely go graphite IF I was to keep one) and I have no desire to have any fame when it comes to fishing. I'd much rather fly under the radar going unnoticed.
Aaron
I've never kept a fish and quite honestly don't plan to. When I get a 50" I'll get graphite reproduction made. With that said, if I was sure it was a world record . . . THUMP . . .
Interesting Voting so far only 18 or 123 a mere ~ 14.5% disagree completely.
Edited by marine_1 4/30/2008 2:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| llratm - 4/30/2008 1:11 PM
I fully agree with Pointer as well, and in the scenario as in life there is no guarantee the fish is the world record, so how many 50-60 lbers will get kept by anglers in awe of their fish's size and thinking it's "just one fish," only to find out it's not a world record at all? Guess I just don't see how the world record is so important
Considering that a true 50# to 60# class fish is something that 99% of muskie anglers will never catch, I really don't think that many are going on the wall. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | The problem is your Dam## if you Keep & Dam## if you release,
If you keep it some will slam you for keeping the fish, others will say it's not as big as claimed
If you release it some self proclaimed experts will say It was caught out of season, or it's not as big as claimed using their skills at photo analysis to say
the measurments are off, or slam you for the way you are holding the beast
and that the hold is making the fish look bigger than it is.
Best bet would be to keep the catch between yourself and a couple of trusted buddies and enjoy the moment
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 4/30/2008 2:22 PM
llratm - 4/30/2008 1:11 PM
I fully agree with Pointer as well, and in the scenario as in life there is no guarantee the fish is the world record, so how many 50-60 lbers will get kept by anglers in awe of their fish's size and thinking it's "just one fish," only to find out it's not a world record at all? Guess I just don't see how the world record is so important
Considering that a true 50# to 60# class fish is something that 99% of muskie anglers will never catch, I really don't think that many are going on the wall.
I believe there are more than we think going on the wall. Even if they are not 50 to 60 pound fish. I can think of two in the 50 pound class that are both dead. One chosen for harvest the other tried to release but didnt make it. It is that continued mentality of most anglers wont get one that big and the ones that do, well it is 'just one fish' going on the wall. That fish likely didnt get that big due being harvested.
I still think it comes down to the fact that, if you say you practice catch and release, then you need to do just that, practice it. If you say you would harvest a fish, then you practice selective harvest. At least in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If the fish is a clean 58" X32", it's a record, period. There's no doubt about it.
Pointer is taking the all or nothing tact. Fine, no worries, that's his personal ethic or belief, but to tell me I'm not a conservationist or a CPR advocate because a record may be harvested in my boat is somewhat oblique, or depending on one's perspective just plain not true.
Now for the record I wouldn't keep the fish, but if it's possible, I'd get it witnessed and confirmed. If I'm in Wisconsin, that's not hard to do. Fish stays in the net, I get someone there post haste. If I'm on Wabigoon, she goes back CPR'd immediately, that's the law because I fish a Conservation license; I'd have her on video and still images, and carefully showing all the measures, no one gets in my boat without understanding how to use the cameras on board just in case something cool happens, and don't worry, it happens fast.
BUT...what are we basing the CPR ethic upon? What is the end goal for many of the Muskie Anglers out there, if not the apex of any sport, the World Record? To suggest that a WORLD RECORD muskie 'has' to be released to push the conservation ethic forward that encourages all folks to release Muskies up TO that record fish is to say we are now going for a totally catch and release fishery no matter where we are and no matter what the size of the fish, and the World Record matters not. Which is it? Depends, again, on your personal beliefs.
I think the 54" limit on many waters in Canada was implemented to eliminate most harvest. On some waters, that will eliminate pretty much ALL harvest, 54" fish are so rare. I think that was the real goal for a few of us recently on Bay of Green Bay in an effort I signed on to, and all the other stuff aside, the motivation was to create a catch and release only fishery to 'guarantee' no one harvested a fish that might...MIGHT...get upwards of 58" or more. I think that many of the folks who opposed the moratorium resolution wanted us to know they 'saw through' the other information, which has value and was absolutely important to consider, but isn't the core issue with most true trophy Muskie anglers. Some have expressed to me they would have liked to have heard; "We want total CPR to see how big those fish can get, and to create one of the best trophy muskie fisheries in the world." The feeling is that platform would have been easier to support for a total CPR fishery there, at least during a moratorium period. I'd have loved to see it happen, and will accept a 54" limit if we collectively can get that done next year, but will also accept that the current 50" limit is more restrictive than the current limit on many trophy waters in the US today.
And 'selective harvest' as Pointer describes it in this case is a zero sum game VS total CPR for everyone here so far, and probably will be for the future. Real is real.
Just some associated rambling this afternoon.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| I'm going to completely disagree with Steve here, but not on any particular point, or for any particular statement he has made above. My complete disagreement is simply to illustrate that you can indeed disagree with whomever you choose around here, including the owners and moderators of this site. And by God, if there's anything worth disagreeing over, it's what to do with a fish that nobody here has ever caught or even seen and likely never will.
So for the record, I officially disagree. Respectfully, of course.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
| 50+ pound fish are rare. I highly doubt I will ever catch a "LEGIT" 50 pounder, and if I do, I will let her go. Now, put a 60+ at the end of my line and I will have to think about it. |
|
| |
|
| More world record class musky have died of old age when compared to the number of true world records even seen by anglers. Keeping one that you happen to catch is no big thing.
Remember, we are chasing a fish and worrying about a fish that has the brain the size of a pea. If a "pea brained" fish has out smarted the best of the best and the worst of the worst for this long, then I would take it out on the world record that finally does let its guard down and make a mistake.
Can you say renewable resource? How many times do you think a world record fish has spawned? Is that world record fish even reproducing any longer?
Here is a thought....Could those world records be sterile? All of its energy spent on eating and getting bigger and nothing draining it of its fat reserves. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| I can honestly say I would let her go, Id rather release her than have my name go in a stupid book. |
|
| |
|
| Pointer- "If you say you practice catch and release, then you need to do just that, practice it. If you say you would harvest a fish, then you practice selective harvest."
Are you stating that those of us who have no problem with one fish being harvested are thus promoting the killing of fish? I think quite a few of us would take issue with that statement. I practice catch & release, but that sure doesn't mean I'm supposed to bad-mouth and degrade those fishermen who decide they want to keep legally caught fish, entirely within their rights to harvest. Look at the figures on the first page, and you'll see that the majority of those voting have no problem with the scenario presented in this thread for discussion. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and let's just agree that we disagree on the subject. The Muskie world is big enough for the both of us. |
|
| |
|
|
I haven't seen anyone badmouth or degrade the decision to kill a muskie here.
Pointer is correct, a C&R fishermen is different than a selective harvest, or whatever you want to call it fishermen.
Pointing that fact out isn't judging anyone, or degrading anyone. It's just stating the difference.
The reasons I believe in C&R are such that if I did kill one than I would be a hypocrite to my beliefs now.
I firmly believe in releasing all muskies because there aren't enough for everyone to keep one. I also want as many people to catch a muskie as is possible.
If someone else caught a record size muskie that I released than it would make me very happy. I also hope that other anglers share that sentiment so I can have the opportunity to catch a fish they release.
So, I say I'm a C&R fishermen because I'll never kill one based on my reasons stated above.
The size of the fish doesn't change my beliefs about release.
JS |
|
| |
|
| John, I appreciate the efforts of c&r fishermen such as yourself, and I may have even caught a fish or two that YOU RELEASED. Like you, I also consider myself a c&r fisherman. The issue Pointer seems to have a problem with is anyone calling themself a c&r fisherman when they would in fact keep the record fish. I'd keep a fish I thought was possitively the world record, yet I still consider myself to be a catch & release advocate. I don't think it has to be "all or nothing". That is the only point I was trying to make. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Frost | John Skarie - 'I firmly believe in releasing all muskies because there aren't enough for everyone to keep one,' this is the perfect response John, the 38% of muskie fishermen that have selected Strongly Agree in the scenario above remains kind of disconcerting though |
|
| |
|
| The 38% are fishermen who have voted in reference to the scenario presented by the original poster. The question is not about whether we release all Muskies or not, but rather would we release the ONE we felt was the sure world record. I doubt that the 38% who selected Strongly Agree are against c&r in any fashion, or should be considered "fish killers" because of their reply. We seem to be getting off track a bit from the question asked in the original post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 250
Location: Pittsburgh, PA | yeah i voted i would keep it doesnt mean i would keep everyone i caught im with Derrys. This all or nothing crap doesnt make sense any way no one can really know for sure what they would do in the situation unless it has happened to them
Edited by baldeaglefisherman 4/30/2008 7:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And I might add it's fairly safe to insist one would release a WORLD record fish and take a lofty position when the actual chances that will happen are about zero.
I'll release every Muskie I catch from now until I leave this life, but that's me. I don't find the fact that most posting to the poll voted as they did either surprising OR distressing, the results are neither if looking at the total big picture of CPR of any muskie NOT a World Record with those same folks.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| Probably the biggest regret I have from fishing is keeping a 7.5 pound largemouth I caught when I was 11. It was truly a great fish, and I haven't caught a bigger bass in Missouri since. It is hanging on my wall, but it makes me kind of sad every time I look at it. I caught a 27.5" rainbow and released it. It was caught and kept a week later by somebody else and I was sad and kind of pissed off. Watching a "record" musky swim away would be the proudest fishing experience of my life. I'm not an emotional guy, but that would be a fantastic experience. Think how ultimately at peace with the world each one of you would be as she waved her tail goodbye at you. So no, I would not keep it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | I honestly don't know, so until it happens to me--no vote here. |
|
| |
|
| I haven't seen anyone badmouth or degrade...
true...and it's been nice to watch a touchy subject get discussed without angry posturing and with respectful dialog from all directions.
Pointer is correct, a C&R fishermen is different than a selective harvest, or whatever you want to call it fishermen...It's just stating the difference...The reasons I believe in C&R are such that if I did kill one than I would be a hypocrite to my beliefs now...I firmly believe in releasing all muskies because there aren't enough for everyone to keep one. I also want as many people to catch a muskie as is possible.
i think we get a bit bogged down in terminology at times when we use "extreme" examples for the purpose of these discussions.
what i mean by that is that the entirely theoretical question of whether or not someone would keep a world record simply isn't a good question to gauge whether or not someone believes in catch/release or selective harvest. it's such an unusual circumstance that it's not applicable to the normal decisions people make every time they catch a fish.
imho, someone's idea that they'd keep a world or state record fish doesn't put them into the selective harvest category because, let's face reality, it's never going to happen anyway.
what a person does on a normal basis, or with a more non-record trophy fish is a better gauge of whether they're all about release or ok with occasional harvest.
i'm a believer in releasing muskies, and i've never kept one...including one true giant of which i wasn't even able to get any pictures; i know some people would have kept that fish under those circumstances. that wouldn't make them bad, but i strongly believe harvest would be the wrong choice on that particular lake; and i'll gladly say so, politely, to anyone who would harvest a fish from there.
at the same time, i'd never say never across the board, as there's some overstocked waters that could potentially benefit from somehow removing some of the muskies. progressive regulations and attitudes that are water-specific would actually help those fisheries. my back-yard pond here in town is a good example: too many stunted muskies and they keep piling them in there.
i frequently and openly spread the word about the value of releasing all muskies, it's only in deeper discussions like this that i even mention a more complicated viewpoint.
and that's my point: these things aren't black and white, they're complex and what works in one place doesn't automatically work everywhere. releasing muskies is why we have the fisheries we have today, we should spread that word in a way that grows the sport without arguing over a 1 in 10 billion situation.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
| Are you serious??? Most of the guys on here couldn't run fast enough to a
fitst class taxidermist to have it recored and mounted IF it truely was a record.
I released a 43 pounder in Wisconsin and believe me---it makes you think!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | For me, the only way I would keep it is if I was 100% sure it was a new world record. Then, I would submit it to the IGFA and be done with it.
If there was a way to legally and safely transport it to a certified scale, get witnesses from DNR, unbiased people, etc. then release it, I would do that in a heartbeat. Probably not going to happen to me, but the IF is always there...
Steve |
|
| |
|
|
I don't think it's taking a lofty position to say you would release any muskie you caught.
It's just stating the truth.
I also don't think the people here saying they would release a record fish are lying, any more than I think that the people who say they would only kill a record would actually kill one that wasn't.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
| Wow! Thats heavy stuff, I hope I get the chance to make that decision someday.
I had a couple really make my heart pound while filming underwater footage.
It is a great question even though it seems unrealistic, you just really never know until it happens.
Don
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would not harvest a World Record Muskie if/when I catch one'
That's a lofty position given the chances of achieving that lofty goal, my opinion, and a position I personally take now that reproductions are so well done..
I don't see anyone saying those who claim they would release a WR muskie are not being truthful, I sure didn't intend to insinuate anything of the sort. John would let her go, and so would I. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Wow! easy choice-> at 58" 32" girth, she'd swim. Now if she was + 60" & 32" girth "Bonk", bonk, bonk!. That's exactly why I don't get the conservation license, i.e., it's then my choice. I also haven't knowingly killed one yet, but someday I might!
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | lambeau - 4/30/2008 8:09 PM
i frequently and openly spread the word about the value of releasing all muskies, it's only in deeper discussions like this that i even mention a more complicated viewpoint.
and that's my point: these things aren't black and white, they're complex and what works in one place doesn't automatically work everywhere. releasing muskies is why we have the fisheries we have today, we should spread that word in a way that grows the sport without arguing over a 1 in 10 billion situation.
These are good points lambeau. My stance on the situation is just that, where I stand. I dont really care if people do/dont agree. Everyone is entiltled to their opinion and I will NEVER criticize someone for their opinion.
I brought up the C&R vs. Selective Harvest statement simply to bring to light of how it could possibly be percieved by an outsider as hypocritical to say one practices C&R yet keeps a record fish. Perhaps I should have explained that a bit better. I'm not saying the 54 people that voted they would keep it are doing the sport a disservice. That was not my intent.
I will, however, stand by my original statement in saying that if a would be record fish were to be released it could speak volumes for the importance and maybe make an impression on a handfull of 'weekend warriors' or pan fisherman to let that 36 incher go instead of keeping it for the wall.
Also, I do not feel it is a 'lofty goal' to say that I WILL release every fish I catch, no matter the size. No, I havent had a 43 pound fish in my hands. But I was lucky enough to land a 52 incher. Never once did the thought cross my mind to keep it. It was by far the biggest fish I've ever caught. The only thought I had was to get a few quick photos and get it back in the water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
| I hate to say it... I would want to keep it. That being said I'd release it as there is no way in hell I could afford to mount a fish like that. That being said I probably could in the future and a repo can be done anytime. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The question is would you release a World record. Catching and releasing a World Record isn't a lofty goal? Look the term up for a definition... |
|
| |
|
| A somewhat famous Muskie fisherman told me he now keeps a certified scale in his boat in case of a scenario like this. Would any record keeping organization allow that, and how many witnesses would be required? Some say the MN State record may fall this year, possibly by someone using the new number 13 bucktails. A DNR officer pretty much told me that to get that record the fish would almost assuredly have to be killed. Does that mean they wouldn't allow someone to bring the fish to shore to be weighed on a certified scale and then released? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
| ghitierman - 5/1/2008 3:57 AM
I hate to say it... I would want to keep it. That being said I'd release it as there is no way in hell I could afford to mount a fish like that. That being said I probably could in the future and a repo can be done anytime.
If you caught the "world record", I know of a certain taxidermist that would do the mount free of charge. |
|
| |
|
|
There is a difference in saying that catching a world record is a lofty goal (which it is), and saying people who say they will release a world record are taking a lofty position.
One describes the goal, the other describes the person. One describes the "height" of the goal, the other describes the "arrogance" of the person.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks all great discussion, I am really glad I posted this poll. Helps pass the time as we wait for the season to open. Hoop said and others agreed “I'd rather be the guy who known for releasing a fish worthy of the record, then the guy who felt the need to kill it for the books.” That’s all well and good, but this specific lake is managed as a record class musky fishery, hence the 54” limit. The Managers WANT someone to keep a record. And there is good that can come from a record fish. Number one in my book is it proves that management philosophy WORKS. Many people outside the musky C&R inner circle flat out don’t care about clams of released record class fish, because they can’t be verified. Really unless you look at lots of pictures of big fish you don’t appreciate it as much as the people in that circle. And additionally half the people in that circle wouldn’t believe you anyway and you wouldn’t be know as a guy who releases a world record class fish you would be know as the guy who CLAIMED to have released a world record fish….”but did you see the pictures it really didn’t look that big.” You would know, but it still doesn’t feel very good having, people talk and speculate behind your back. I have been there in a similar musky situation and it starts to really rub you the wrong way. Someone said: “I don’t fish for records” Well I don’t think anyone does, if they do it seems pretty silly. I didn’t play football for records or run track for records, but it sure feels good when you get them. Lets face it if you’re a musky fisherman you are probably pretty competitive, it’s mostly about competing with the fish, because that’s the true battle. But look at the number of people who spend thousands of dollars a year fishing tournaments. Ulbian Said: “If it does happen to die on me that thing will first pay a visit to a fishery biologist. Alot more could be learned from a fish like that than it would immediately going to get a mount done.” I would like to make the comment that everything biological could be learned after it first goes to the taxidermist. I would rather have the taxidermist remove the skin and prep the fish for mounting than have the biologist dissect the important parts, because the taxidermist understands the art of taxidermy, my experience is biologist could care less about the “ART” and rightly so. None of the biological data would be affected by the taxidermist, where as cutting the fish in the wrong spot may mess up the mounting process. Just my opinion, and I agree, everything possible would have to be learned from a fish like this. Pointerpride102 Said: “Hard for me to say I practice C&R if I plan on whacking 'The' big one.” In my opinion Catch and Release is a philosophy not a religion. If someone practices C&R 90% of the time, in my opinion they are catch and release fishermen. I truly believe that an extreme C&R attitudes does far more to harm the philosophy and turn people off than someone keeping an occasional fish, or having a fish die and for sure keeping a record fish. It all effects how we as a group are perceived. I had to battle that perception when lobbying for the 50” size limit on Pelican Lake. Look at the topic we had earlier in the winter, some people are willing to take C&R so far that they would rather release a dead fish than be known as someone who kept one. Either way the fish is still dead. Lambeau said: “…the entirely theoretical question of whether or not someone would keep a world record simply isn't a good question to gauge whether or not someone believes in catch/release or selective harvest.” You are correct it’s not a good question to gauge C&R believes, however it does show the extreme example and how people feel about that. And I believe it does tell us a lot about the people who frequent this board. I for one am very glad there is 54% of people responding that really don’t have a problem with the scenario, and another 31% who don’t much care. It restores my faith that the majority of the extremely passionate musky fishermen who frequent this site have not gone over the deep end. Remember the people reading this are probably the top 10% of crazies to begin with, myself included. Nail A Pig! Mike |
|
| |
|
| There is nothing "extreme" about people that don't ever intend to kill a muskie no matter how big it is.
There are many, many fisheries throughout the world that are C&R only. Europe, Canada, US, S. America. New Zealand.
This notion that 100% C&R is a harmful perception is completely off base.
What I see here are people saying they wouldn't kill a record and telling why.
What is harmful in that? Take it or leave it. Nobody is forcing any opinions on anyone else. Nobody has insinuated the those who would kill it are bad people or are below people that wouldn't kill them.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I agree John.
I think this thread has stood well. This topic really could have gone downhill fast..it has not done that. People have "kept their heads" about it..
It has been a very interesting read and everyone is being cordial about it. It's a breath of fresh air!!
Mike...very good response with the quotes.. Great summary of many of the big points in the thread. Thanks
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | So what is the main reason to keep such a fish?
Is it so your name is in the record book?
Is it to feel like you accomplished something great since you got to kill something so big, so rare?
Is it to remember it by?
What would be the reason you would kill it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| I wouldn't kill it, Mike. I'd feel guilty every time I looked at it. I have one skin mount, a fish I caught when I was a kid, and to this day I regret keeping that fish. But I can answer your questions anyway.
1. So what is the main reason to keep such a fish? To prove that it really was a record. You know how muskie guys are, you could even post a picture of a fish on a bump board and the weight shown on a certified scale, and nobody would believe it was legit.
2. Is it so your name is in the record book? That's probably part of it. Ego is huge in this sport. Having that record to wave around? "Look at me, I am better, I caught the biggest muskie EVER" Judging my the conversations you see around here, 10 minutes of fame and the ultimate "hey look at me" is pretty important to some guys.
3. Is it to feel like you accomplished something great since you got to kill something so big, so rare? Probably not about the "killing part" as much as the catching part, and being able to verify that you aren't lying about it.
4. Is it to remember it by? Probably some of that too, but not just to remember it, but to have it. Not a replica that could be fake or exaggerated, but THE actual fish. I caught it, and there it is, hanging over my bar.
5. What would be the reason you would kill it? Well, some probably for all the reasons listed above, and some other maybe for no other reason than "Because I CAN. It's legal, I caught it, it's MINE, and I can do what I want with it." Might not be a position we all agree with, but it IS true. I suspect a lot of it is entitlement -- "I've spent 30 years fishing for these, I've released hundeds of them and I'm keeping this one."
Now I doubt you'll find many people here at least who would be willing to admit to any of that, but they're all valid reasons.
I would add, Mike, that for someone like you none of those are probably good enough reasons. And I wouldn;t expect them to be. Your livelyhood depends on there being muskies. Big ones, and plenty of them, because who's going to hire you to fish for them if you can't catch them anymore? More and bigger muskies means more happy clients and more bookings for you. Not saying that's your only reason, I'm sure its not. But being a guide I would EXPECT you to release every musky no matter how big, both because you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by leeping them AND because you are one of the people who can teach people about C&R, and do it in front of them every day you are on the water guiding. Teaching that ethic is importnat, and because you guide professionally people are going to listen to what you say and watch what you do.
Edited by esoxaddict 5/1/2008 11:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi Mike,
If there was no way to release it safely after a transport for a certified weight to be taken, measured, witnessed etc. it would be (for me) 100% to put the controversy of the false/true muskie record to bed. Probably not going to happen, but if it did, that would be my only reason to keep it. Nothing to do with notoriety among other fishermen/women out there, nothing do to with my own feeling of needing to keep the fish. It would be about putting the controversy to bed once and for all. That's it, end of story, end of controversy..
The mount would not go in my own home...it would be at the IGFA or kept in a fireproof, climate controlled room somewhere where it is secure from being stolen, ruined etc. My name would probably have to be on it somehow, but it wouldn't need to be. I would have a replica made of it for my own home.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | John I was trying to point out that my scenario was extreme, but I do feel that people who would release a World Record are extreme, just as people who would release a dead fish are extreme, however many people labeled me as extreme, for pushing so hard for a 50” size limit on Pelican Lake, and people are still labeling us as extreme. It’s all relative and not necessarily a bad thing.
I have no problem with anyone who posted on this thread, I was trying to respond to what Pointerpride102 Said, in the following:
“Dont you think it would speak volumes to those that dont understand how important C&R is to musky fishing, if a die hard musky angler released a would be WR?
What is more important to the further preservation of our sport; pounding our chests saying that Spray's 'fraud' is no more, or proclaiming the importance of Catch and Release to the general public who just might not quite understand how important it is?”
I was trying to point out that “In My OPINION” the general public will not understand the importance of releasing a World Record Musky, especially considering many of the musky diehards on this site don’t see the benefits. I flat out don’t think there are any benefits to C&R by releasing a potential world record; however I have absolutely no problem with someone doing it. If I am fishing in Canada I would gladly do it as I only buy a conservation license, and depending on the Lake I am fishing here in the States I could possibly do it. It’s very unlikely ever to happen, but it really would be all situational. I really don’t see releasing of a world record as being “important to the further preservation of our sport.”
Again my experience working on raising size limits here in Wisconsin, has shown me that the general fishing public thinks were all nuts(musky fishermen) anyway. When people are in your face about C&R (NOT SAYING anyone has done that here, this has been a great discussion) it only makes it worse. Heck we had to avoid the term trophy because of the negative connotations the word can have to average sportsmen. I really don’t think those people would be affected by hearing a World Record musky was released. Most likely many of them would roll there eyes and say “Typical!”
Again I see nothing harmful in this thread other than what could be perceived as snide comments such as;
“…kill it just to get your name in a book.”
“I'd rather be the guy who known for releasing a fish worthy of the record, then the guy who felt the need to kill it for the books.”
“…not an individual angler's shot at glory camoflauged as a way to end the controversy over the current record.”
“…Id rather release her than have my name go in a stupid book.”
“Is it to feel like you accomplished something great since you got to kill something so big, so rare?”
Mike if I decided to keep a World Record Musky it would be because it’s a WORLD RECORD, the pinnacle of our sport, many people would be very interested in that fish and the many circumstances of it’s existence, since I decided to keep it I could find no good reason to release it, and most important, it just a fish. O-yea and it would prove that I am a “BIG MAN”!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 5/1/2008 1:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
There are many more fishermen in this world that understand C&R than don't.
That is a fact. There are more 100% C&R trout fishermen than all the muskie fisherman combined.
The vast majority of waters in Europe are no kill waters.
There are many resorts in Canada now that have no kill policies if you are a guest there.
There are many muskie guides that will not allow a client to keep a fish.
Some would say that 100% C&R on Lac Suel is extreme. I would say it's a very intelligent decision made with a lot of foresight.
To say the the "general" public, or most fishermen don't understand C&R is not accurate.
To say that they are unable, or unwilling to understand it is also not accurate IMHO.
100% C&R for sportfish is not a new concept. It's not something that the minority of anglers in this world embrace.
It isn't reserved for elitists and extremists.
To hundreds of thousands of anglers and biologists worldwide it's a very sensible idea.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | The only way to resolve debates such as this would be to go out and actually catch one, then whatever your descision is so be it and let the chips fall where they may
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| john skarie - 5/1/2008 11:38 AM
There are many more fishermen in this world that understand C&R than don't.
That is a fact. There are more 100% C&R trout fishermen than all the muskie fisherman combined.
The vast majority of waters in Europe are no kill waters.
There are many resorts in Canada now that have no kill policies if you are a guest there.
There are many muskie guides that will not allow a client to keep a fish.
Some would say that 100% C&R on Lac Suel is extreme. I would say it's a very intelligent decision made with a lot of foresight.
To say the the "general" public, or most fishermen don't understand C&R is not accurate.
To say that they are unable, or unwilling to understand it is also not accurate IMHO.
100% C&R for sportfish is not a new concept. It's not something that the minority of anglers in this world embrace.
It isn't reserved for elitists and extremists.
To hundreds of thousands of anglers and biologists worldwide it's a very sensible idea.
JS
So what would commercial fishermen think about C&R????? As long as your addressing "anglers worldwide", why not include this group? |
|
| |
|
|
We are talking about "sportfish", right?
What is your point regarding commercial fishermen?
I see no relevance to the discussion there.
JS |
|
| |
|
| i imagine commercial fisherman would feel about the same as everyone else, some would support releasing sportfish and some wouldn't. they're probably in favor of harvesting the food fish that they collect...
so yes, sportfish, and yes, let's stay on target.
in my experience it's generally the non-muskie fishermen who have the least understanding of the value of releasing muskies. someone who primarily fishes panfish or walleyes and eats them isn't exposed to the same sorts of issues and discussions as fishermen targeting fish solely for the sport of it such as muskies, bass, and trout.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| We are a tiny segment of the overall fishing population, fishing for a fish that most anglers have never seen, know nothing about, and wouldn't be able to identify if one swam up and bit them on the Jeff Lietz. I think any assumptions we make about "average anglers" embracing C&R are a result our judgement being clouded, based on living in our own little muskie world. Don't get me wrong, I like it here in our little world, but its been my experience that most anglers fish to catch fish to eat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| john skarie - 5/1/2008 12:20 PM
We are talking about "sportfish", right?
Point taken. Thought you were talking about the concept of C&R for ALL fish. My blood pressure hit the roof for a second. I stand corrected.
I will add my (more productive) 0.02 cents to this discussion and touch on something Mr. Skarie did in a previous post. Most people are willing to partake in and hear the argument for catch-and-release. Whether it be from a completely moral or biological standpoint.
I have spent the last three months living in a small fishing community in the Caribbean and when I first told the locals here I release all the fish I catch they simply burst out laughing. Then I told them a little more about my "philosophy" and the "joy" I get from watching a 50"er swim away under her own power to be caught another day at a bigger size. Some of them could understand my viewpoint, some could not. Then when I told them a little about the biology of the muskie - their low population numbers, reproductive strategies, importance within an ecosystem - they listened intently. Most of these guys fish for small fish that reproduce quickly and numerously, have relatively short lifespans, and mature at an early age. When I contrasted that with the muskie's basic life history they could understand. I am in the process of looking at possible recommendations for the endangered Nassau grouper and plan to use a similar argument to convey to the community that there are necessary precautions needed to be taken to ensure the sustainability of this fishery.
Sorry if I jumped the gun earlier.
Edited by esox50 5/1/2008 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | John I think my point is being missed, most likely I am not making it clearly.
I am NOT trying to say the "general" public, or most fishermen don't understand C&R or that they are unable, or unwilling to understand it.
What I was trying to say is that the general public would most likely not see the relationship between releasing a world record and it supposed positive impacts on future C&R promotion.
In fact an opposite argument could be made, something like, through the actions and efforts of C&R, catching of a world record is more likely.
As the bar is raised you most likely loose more people, unless there is good sound biological reasoning behind the rule, Lac Suel for example. Green Bay for another, here many people are yet to be convinced.
I hope that makes more sense, I will try and edit my previous post with emphasis on what I was trying to say, regarding releasing a world record, not catch and release in general.
And what Lambeau said!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 5/1/2008 2:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's 'arrogant' to say I would release a fish that in all probability I will never catch? I said it's a lofty goal and probably not likely to be attained by any of us here; and a lofty position to take for that reason alone. It's also one I take so I guess by your definition I'm 'arrogant' in that regard, I plead completely guilty on that count. Better chance of winning the Power Ball lottery, and I've seen LOTS of 'lofty' claims as to what folks would do with the money. None of them have won yet.
I'd let her go. Conservation license for that very reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| But we are not talking about 50-60# fish. We're talking about a 70+ pound fish. And that would be exactly the first one, ever!
Man, I'm like two pages behind, here
Edited by Shep 5/1/2008 3:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
And I might add it's fairly safe to insist one would release a WORLD record fish and take a lofty position when the actual chances that will happen are about zero.
I'm not sure how to interpret that statement any other way than that people who are saying they would release the record are taking a "lofty" postition above those who say they would kill it.
It's not a "lofty" position, it's just different.
I really don't think the guys who are posting here feel superior to those that would kill the fish. Why are they made out to be that way?
A few days ago somebody made the comment about "release police" and how "those guys" would be more worried about hurting a muskie than their own kids.
Why are people constantly made out to be like that in these conversations?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| John, its because nobody likes being told what they should or shouldn't do, espeically in America. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Guest - 5/1/2008 3:45 PM
I really don't think the guys who are posting here feel superior to those that would kill the fish. Why are they made out to be that way?
A few days ago somebody made the comment about "release police" and how "those guys" would be more worried about hurting a muskie than their own kids.
Why are people constantly made out to be like that in these conversations?
JS
John,
I wasn't trying to be a jerk when I wrote that, just came out that way. Sorry if I offended you. That said, I personally don't feel like anyone who claims whole-heartedly that ALL fish should be released and have an opinion on this thread are getting made out to be anything worse than someone who say they would keep a fish. I think history would say that people who claim to keep fish are made out to be a lot worse.
I've never kept a fish or knowingly killed one, but yes, I would keep a 59X33 and still consider myself a 100% catch and release fisherman. If I've released 50+ 40 inch muskies, i shouldn't be looked at as a "selective harvest" fisherman because I kept THE one in my lifetime. Just my opinion. Not like that 59X33 is going to come around anytime soon (I should say never...but maybe this next cast... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I really don't think the guys who are posting here feel superior to those that would kill the fish. Why are they made out to be that way?
'A few days ago somebody made the comment about "release police" and how "those guys" would be more worried about hurting a muskie than their own kids.
Why are people constantly made out to be like that in these conversations?
JS '
I've been on the receiving end of abuse from a group of Muskie anglers that identifies themselves as such by action and word. I don't think I've even met some of them; they know me not at all, but because we encourage debate like this one and the fact I will take a Devil's Advocate position to further same they've branded me many things, all of them not very nice. You have seen this sort of thing in your long Muskie angling experience. Unfortunately, by proxy those who talk a bit like that or take stances that appear at rudimentary glance to be as radical can be mistakenly identified as 'with' those folks. Common problem, but the risk is the 'extreme' message will unfairly taint the 'dedicated/passionate' message in any issue like this one. I think you are dedicated and passionate, and I bet most others feel the same, but the fact those 'guys' are out there and very vocal is undeniable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | If I knew I had a 70+ pounder I would thump it if I couldn't get it on a certified scale and verified by the right people (like Ramsell or someone from the new Record Group). Good thing I have a cell phone with many numbers in it.
You know many of the people who say they would let it go would probably also say the fish didn't weigh what you say too. A thump and no one can dispute it. Unfortunate but true.
The guy I admire would be the one to just catch it, know how big it is, take a picture, let it go and just tell his friends. Bigger man than I. One thing to say you'd do it and another to do it.
Edited by Jomusky 5/1/2008 9:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Frost | well since my commentary has already been labeled as 'snide' there's no reason to hold anything back and I might as well just say the only explanation I can see for why someone would kill such a fish is pure selfishness, you say you want to end the world record controversy and yet you're all stumbling over one another to be the next Louis Spray, and how can you say you're 100% C&R if you keep one fish? I guess you must just be rounding up |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | After reading Mr. Ramsell's extremely interesting perspective on this, no one is scrambling to forge a record or do anything to put themselves in that category. And yes, as of now, I am 100% C and R. If I catch a 70 pounder, you can read the record books and always remember how I killed a beautiful fish and didn't respect the fishery that "the true advocates of catch and release" built and I tore down. My years of releasing fish would mean nothing, am I right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | I wonder why Milo Hansen decided to shoot his world record typical whitetail instead of letting it go about its business and continue to spread its genes. I would never harass anyone for catching and harvesting a world record fish. Especially with the rediculous efforts put forth these days to maintain healthy musky fisheries. I bet you their are, at this very moment quite a few new world records swimming around. I'd also be willing to say that a few of them have never been caught or even seen. |
|
| |
|
|
Point taken Steve;
I know you didn't mean to intentionally insult anyone. Some days my skin isn't a thick as others.
Playing Devil's advocate does bring out a point of view that can be enlightening at times to all people.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Hey all great thought provoking discussion as always. I'm off to Pelican Lake for a weekend of walleye fishing in the snow and rain. Water temps probably still in the mid 40s if they are like Boom Lake when I got my boat running yesterday.
Should I catch a world record walleye, crappie, white bass, or rock bass, I'll be sure to post it here. How would you all feel if I KILL a 30 Pack of Bottle Bass? No catch and release of those babies, unless you count praying to the porcelain god the next morning.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, Give me a call, I have something for you to try out there. Walleyes galore... |
|
| |
|
| Mike actually brings up a good point. As dedicated as most Muskie fishermen are to catch &release, I think we sometimes forget, or maybe don't even realize that there are fishermen just as dedicated to protecting Bass, Crappie, Trout, Walleyes, Pike, and other species as well. How many of us who would never dream of harvesting a Muskie, regularly keep our limits of those species? I know someone will reply with a comment about Muskies not being as predominant of species as those others, but we're still killing fish that others believe wholeheartedly in protecting.
Just thought I'd give you all a different perspective.
Hope you have a successful trip Mike. |
|
| |
|
|
How to best protect and manage a fishery is completely dependant on the species.
Plain and simple, what works for trout is different than walleyes. What works for small mouth is different than muskies. etc. etc.
The exact same debate we have going on here happens among anglers of all species.
Because one of us may eat a perch doesn't mean you're a hypocrite for taking a position of not killing a muskie.
Those circumstances and situations are completely different from one another which I think even those that bring up that argument know that fact.
If you were to ask the Ministry in Canada why Lac Suel isn't C&R only for walleyes as well muskies, what do you think the answer would be?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8857
| Well John, once they stopped laughing they'd probably tell you its because the fishery is managed for some degree of harvest, and that "protecting" a particular species of fish, is only warranted when it's actually necessary for the future of the fishery.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 57
| I really doubt a fish that big is going to be landed unless it is older and not very healthy. About 3 summers ago there was a fish that was hooked that spooled a man's reel and then broke it as the line came to the end. It was the resort owner's story he told me. Same man told of a pair that were netted in the spring that were way beyond the record weight. This was by MNR people. They got the length and girth numbers. Now some may say this is just wishful thinking and this man is trying to drum up business for his lodge. He would like the record fish to come out of his area for sure. I really feel that a healthy fish wont be landed unless you go out with ocean trolling equipment with lotsa line... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| I don't mean to be a putz, but I am wondering if I am the only one who thinks this whole thread is an exercise in futility?!? Odds are the world record will be caught by someone fishing for crappies or walleyes anyway! 
Good thing there is only another month until season is open just about everywhere!
-Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Does the "what would you do with a world record" change if it wasn't a muskie? Perhaps you caught a 30 pound largemouth. Does that same "I'd bonk it" or "I'd let it go" mentality still take hold? Not trying to cause a ruckus but just curious as to how what is done with a potential world record fish would change if it was a different species.
What I would do if I caught a true, without question, world record muskie has changed in the past 24 hours. From a position of trying to do whatever I could to release it to my new position that. After reading Larry Ramsell's account of world records in another thread from start to finish, if I land a muskie that is without a doubt 80 pounds (just to give a little leeway) I would drive myself, the fish, a fisheries biologist or two, a certified scale expert, and perhaps a few police officers or a couple of judges up to John Detloff's front door in order to pay a friendly visit. Chances are it still wouldn't be accepted but it sure would be fun. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: Kildeer, IL | I'd be reluctant to keep the fish, because that means the rest of that day and possibly the rest of the trip is blown. From the time you turn in the fish to the time you are done filling out paper work and answering questions is probably a couple of days. If fish to get away from paperwork and meetings.
I don't get out that often, and would be upset about the time lost. |
|
| |
|
| JS- "Plain and simple, what works for trout is different than walleyes. What works for small mouth is different than muskies. etc. etc. "
That's pretty much the reply I expected, and its entirely accurate. My point was that to many Muskie fishermen catching a Bass, Walleye, or Trout would be no big deal, and they'd probably not really care if they lived or died. There are fishermen of other species who feel that same way about catching a Muskie. Those are the people we need to educate. In a way though, I do feel it is somewhat wierd that some 100% c&r Muskie fishermen will keep limit after limit of other species, such as Walleye. I believe a MN DNR officer told me once that something like 80% of their resources are geared around Walleye stocking, and other Walleye related projects. Imagine if they didn't need to stock as many Walleyes as they currently do, because of more Walleye, and Muskie fishermen releasing them. Maybe that ratio would come down and allow for more funds to be spent on Muskie related projects?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | what always amazes me is how some musky fisherman are looked at by others who only pursue lets say bass or walleye. like your boat is in the way or something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | whynot - 5/2/2008 2:13 PM
I don't mean to be a putz, but I am wondering if I am the only one who thinks this whole thread is an exercise in futility?!? Odds are the world record will be caught by someone fishing for crappies or walleyes anyway!
Good thing there is only another month until season is open just about everywhere!
-Chris
NO! you are NOT the only one. I attribute it to a long winter, maybe soon we can actually talk about catcing muskies rather then handling them/measuring them/releasing them/not releasing them blah blah blah |
|
| |
|
Posts: 395
Location: NW WI | If it was a 60 = BONK
If was a 70 = BONK
|
|
| |
|
|
Walleye stocking in MN is mandated at current levels by the legislature.
Much of the walleye stocking is not needed or in many cases a wasted effort, but the DNR is forced to do it.
Think of all the money we could save in the muskie program if more fish were released than there are now.
That would have a greater positive effect on the muskie budget more than anything. More lakes could be stocked with lower numbers of fish if more restrictive harvest (is higher size limits) was put on them.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
I'd think MN would get that done across the board eventually. Do you see the possibility of a 50" limit or more happening? |
|
| |
|
| JS- "Think of all the money we could save in the muskie program if more fish were released than there are now."
In the area you and I fish, are there really that many fish currently being taken? The only Muskies I've ever seen anyone harvest while I've been fishing were ones which were hooked too deep and could not be revived. I personally have never seen anyone at the access saying "Look what I got" and showing off a harvested fish. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I doubt there are currently countless numbers of fish being harvested, at least in our area. I'd like to see the minimum length restriction higher statewide, just to ensure there won't be as many harvested fish, but from my personal experience it doesn't appear to be as big of issue as some make it out to be. I'd like to find out just how many fish are taken annually from our areas waters. It would be interesting. |
|
| |
|
|
Two years ago one taxidermist in the DL area mounted 29 muskies, the largest was 49".
Most of the fish were under 45".
Ask Jerry Sondag about the taxidermist in the Pelican area.
Remember Killer? He's personally killed over 30 muskies in one lake, not to mention the other people he's helped out.
There are many muskies being killed in our area Brad.
Most of them are targeted, and not incidentals according to the taxidermists I know.
JS |
|
| |
|
| Steve;
I see more and more chances of higher size limits, especially on lakes like Leech and Cass, native waters.
We've jumped up to 48" on more lakes, and probably more to come.
I think Vermillion and Mille Lacs would benefit from a 54" limit.
I don't think it would be that hard to get that done, we've got a lot of good people working on this with the DNR.
John |
|
| |
|
| I remember "Killer" very well, and I know he keeps many fish. I don't recall him illegally taking any fish though. I know he was one of the reasons we tried to get the minimum length restriction raised on that lake, and although we were unable to get that done at that time, more fish are now being stocked in that lake as a result. If I remember correctly, the DNR said something to the effect that to get a 48 inch minimum restriction on that particular lake would be hard to do unless the entire State of MN went to a 48 inch restriction. Is that correct John, or did I not understand their answer at that time? In my earler post I was talking about my personal experience. I know fish are being taken, but I was talking about the fact that since the early 90's when I started fishing Muskies, I have never seen a fisherman at the access with a Muskie he took to fillet or to mount. Not one time. It's kind of odd that in all that time it hasn't happened. It's just a wierd coincidence is all, I wasn't implying it didn't happen. Sorry if I mis-stated my thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | OK musky peoples, what is the difference between say dropping or not the new record whitetail and or putting a 70 pound fish back in the water or on the wall ???? You can pull or not pull the trigger or release that arrow right?? Just curious as to peoples thoughts on this aspect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | yep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | Muskydr - 5/4/2008 10:10 PM
OK musky peoples, what is the difference between say dropping or not the new record whitetail and or putting a 70 pound fish back in the water or on the wall ???? You can pull or not pull the trigger or release that arrow right?? Just curious as to peoples thoughts on this aspect.
depending on how old that record whitetail is, it may have stopped being able to reproduce. you can't be sure though but i'd pull the trigger as just about any hunter would. i don't see me crossing paths with a 214 inch typical anytime soon nor a 70 lb musky but you never know. musky stop producing too at a certain age if im not mistaken. |
|
| |
|
|
I guess the easy answer for me is that we don't exactly have a problem with the deer population as far as numbers.
We could go a long ways to manage for better trophies here in MN though, but that's as much in the hands of the hunters as anything.
Every square mile of land in MN is inhabited by deer. We are struggling to find new lakes that we can stock muskies in to keep up with the pressure put on them by new anglers.
I haven't hit any muskies with my car lately either, don't think they will overpopulate our state any time soon.
Are you looking for any more reasons why deer and muskies are different?
JS
|
|
| |
|
| I hunt Deer in North Dakota, and the population is controlled. The number of licenses available are in direct proportion to the number of Deer that area is able to support. I've never been turned down for the area I hunt, but I know some guys who didn't get a Deer tag for 5 years. As John states, Muskies will probably never overpopulate a lake. Bass and Walleye may be more apt to do that, depending on the lake and the restrictions. The sportswriter for my hometown newspaper fished Walleyes on Mille Lacs a few years ago when that seemed to be an issue. He caught 105 Walleyes in two days, many of which were hooked numerous times before and were abnormally thin for their size. By the regulations in place at that time, he could only keep 3 of those 105 fish. That is an instance of the regulations not meeting the current needs of the lake. Something like that will never happen with Muskies, at least in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Not a comparison between deer and muskies, but a comparison between perceived "trophy" or "world record" status. Population comparison? Of course that's a much different story. Oh, and maybe someone did hit a muskie with their car as evidenced by the 53" that was found in a ditch last year off the highway a few miles from Mille Lacs.Pics were in the Mille Lacs Messenger. It's a sick world and I'm a happy guy. Tic. toc, tic, toc,tic, toc. Is it June yet????????????? Steve |
|
| |
Record Scenario, how would you feel?