|
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | This Tiger musky caught in the state of Washington is said to be 54 inches. Just curious what some of you guys might think it looks like from the photo. Here is the link:
http://washingtonlakes.com/forum/yaf_postst5127_Has-it-finally-happ...
(54inch%20Newman%20Lake.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 54inch%20Newman%20Lake.jpg (51KB - 173 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Nice fish
I don't think it even close to 50lbs but how can you tell from a picture. That is a very nice fish though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| Based solely on the photo my guess is 47", maybe 48", but if the angler claims 54" then that is all you really have to go by. A good or a bad photo can make a world of difference as we all know, just as how you measure it can, but the wrist of that fish looks pretty thin. Most of the tigers I've seen are built fairly thick through the tail, but obviously not every fish is built the same. Regardless it is a very nice fish and I'd love to catch it. 50lbs? Not a chance. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 433
Location: Cedarburg, Wisconsin | Hard to tell without knowing the angler's size. It could certainly be 54". How much does it weigh? Having never caught a 54" fish that looked like that I can only guess it is around 36#. It has no girth to speak of but there is a lot of length so mid thirties is very realistic and it could go more. I doubt it is anywhere close to 50#. |
|
| |
|
| "If you want to crown them, then crown their a@@! But they are who we thought they were! And we let them off the hook!"
what good does it do anyone to play the "guess the picture" game?
none.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20261
Location: oswego, il | I still find it interesting that fish like this can get hammered on the internet(not this one in particular yet) yet there are fish that are of significance that are extremely questionable and need to be corrected yet these same people could care less?  |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I agree with Lambeau on this one...it's SO hard to judge the correct length from a picture. And for a fish that's reported to be 54 inches, it's even more so. How many 54" fish have most people measured or even seen in a net?
Last fall my uncle and I caught a fish that went just over 53" (with no tail pinch) on Green Bay. We worked with the fish in the net for several minutes to unhook it, before we measured it. But it wasn't until we measured her in the water that I even knew it was *close* to 53"... Yea, I knew it was over 50 inches--but until you spend your time handling 50" fish after 50" fish after 50" fish...I really don't think you'll even come close to estimating a fish of that size. I know I sure can't.
From now on, I'll be using a cradle (the same one I had in the boat but *didn't* use, duh) to measure any 50"+ fish in the water. This handling them in the boat business is unacceptable. A 40-50 pound musky is extremely hard to handle safely.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Sorry, but no one would be able to hold a 50 pounder out like that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1120
Location: West Chester, OH | Mrs. Lapp was robbed. |
|
| |
|
| 55 to 56 |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Pointerpride102 - 11/15/2008 11:20 AM
Sorry, but no one would be able to hold a 50 pounder out like that.
Oh come on now Mike, you're just being modest. I've seen you pick a 35-pound fish out of the water with two fingers while holding a digital camera with the other three, AND eating a sandwich with the other hand...while singing Queen's "We are the Champions" and swearing at the Packer game on the radio--all at the same time.
You could do it--there's no use denying it.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| to avoid sounding arrogant or argumentive i just say nice fish. that way it avoids hard feelings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | Looks to be about 54 Inches . . . give up the guessing game . . . wouldn't it be great if we could avoid this garbage for just one winter? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 74
Location: thunder bay | if it's 54 inch's it's a new tiger world record since the old was 53 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I think you can easily tell how big a fish is by a photo. I would say this fish is around 45 inches. The size of the tail, fins, body, etc...it is definately not 54, or even close. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 480
| I'm with Mike, I thought it's possible to reverse the 5 and 4. Not so bad with a 44" or 55". If the guy was as big as Andre the Giant (rip) then I get to change my final answer. Being small for muskie fishing is ok, it just makes the fish look bigger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
Location: Ft. Wayne, Indiana | 54 inches...I think not
Edited by Billy B 11/16/2008 5:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | How tall is the guy? If he is 5'3" i highly doubt that fish is 54, but if he's 6'10"... |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | 48 inches |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
| Gigantic hands? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Correct me if I am wrong but how many Tiger Muskies ever reach 50", yet alone mid 50's??
I guess I'll be the internet armchair critic...not a flipping chance 54" or 50 lbs. I will bet the house on it |
|
| |
|
| At best that fish is 45 and skinny at that! Still a nice tiger! But don't come on here and say that,that fish is 54 inches long. Just ridiculous!
I just talked to Izzy and Jimmy Martino and they both agree that the fish is 45" at BEST!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 314
Location: Bristol, IN | C'mon, the guys had dyslexia. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No one DID 'come on here' and 'say' the fish was any particular length; someone reported what another person said that appears to be what someone else heard. I haven't seen any claim from the guy who caught the fish, just comments from folks who have seen a copy of the image. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| I like playing "guess the length " games with pics--you can be fooled occasionally -- The most rcent cool illistration of that was the ky state record fish -- in the 1st 2 pics it looked huge to me when held by Scott and his step daughter horizontally , but the pic where Scott was holding it by himself vertically as he was lifting it out of the net I would have guessed 49-50. Awful easy to be off 3 inches. having said that I'd guess that fish at 48 tops. MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| MikeHulbert - 11/16/2008 5:11 PM
I think you can easily tell how big a fish is by a photo. I would say this fish is around 45 inches. The size of the tail, fins, body, etc...it is definately not 54, or even close.
Exactly my guess. Sometimes these fish tales get blown out of proportion simply by accident. someone said 45 and another heard 54. I could care less but honestly bad picture or not that fish isn't 54"es... still a way nice tiger, I'd like to stick one that big sometime. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 74
Location: thunder bay | 
well that's a 45.5 inch tiger right there.they look pretty close
Edited by muskynate 11/17/2008 3:45 PM
|
|
| |
