|
|
| http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/fishing/2009/09/new-mi...
Sounds like the guy tried to release it, but I must say that it's nice to see a new, verified record fish from the Midwest. Hopefully MN will fall soon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| That's a big fish. possible michigan state record on a basment Michigan bait.
congrats to Angler and Kermit Good. Magnets are awesome baits.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1237
Location: South Portsmouth, KY | Dang! Thats a pig!! |
|
| |
|
| That thing is a true giant. I plan on breaking the MN record tonight! jk that would be awesome though! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 395
Location: NW WI | The guy should be drawn and quartered for not releasing the fish! He should have done everything humanly possible, including taking HIS OWN life to save that fish! Get out the torches!!!! Michigan here we come!!!!
Joking of course! WOW...what a horse!!!! Could waterski behind that girl! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | Here an interesting quote:
"Anderson’s boat, seen here docked at the morning he caught the fish, was rigged and ready. Anderson doesn’t own a car, just this boat, which he drives to work every day." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 727
| Congrats to the lucky man, neat to see that the DNR had it tagged earlier. They were saying that it weighed about 5lbs more when they tagged it :0 |
|
| |
|
Location: Oswego, IL | HUGE! They should give him at least 10% of all proffits made on that lake for the next year. Look out here comes the crowd! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | We have mixed feelings here. Wonderfull to see the guy get such a great fish but sorry it had to end the way it did. He felt really bad. He stated that the hooks got into the gill plates and he cut everything he could to get her free. W e all know what happens when hooks get into gills these fish fight so hard that they can rip themsilves to shreds. It was a tagged fish and had a tracking beacon on her. W e were all very excited to see the results at our coming banquet in March. It would have shown the seasonal movements of a 50 pound class fish. But happy for Kyle and sad for the loss of the big girl. There are others and I am sure there are bigger ones. This lake is an inland sea deep ,long and dangerous. Northwest winds can put up waves like walls. Congrats to Kyle, Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
| Good for him. It's great to see an actual musky fisherman catch this than someone that accidentally lucked into it while fishing for something else.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| Huge fish...but more importantly: beautiful fish. Love those great lakes strains with the spots.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| at least this fish met it's demise by a musky fisherman who may have caught a state record. what happened to all the fish in that area that had a tracking devise in them? Spear Holes in thier and shoulders...so, yea, i guess it is too bad it died, but the crowd up there seems to be hip to spearing anyways...
normally, when a guy gets a 50 pounder and says "it would not release", i never believe them. however, this angler has caught fish similar to this one before.
Kingfisher - 9/29/2009 4:23 PM
We have mixed feelings here. Wonderfull to see the guy get such a great fish but sorry it had to end the way it did. He felt really bad. He stated that the hooks got into the gill plates and he cut everything he could to get her free. W e all know what happens when hooks get into gills these fish fight so hard that they can rip themsilves to shreds. It was a tagged fish and had a tracking beacon on her. W e were all very excited to see the results at our coming banquet in March. It would have shown the seasonal movements of a 50 pound class fish. But happy for Kyle and sad for the loss of the big girl. There are others and I am sure there are bigger ones. This lake is an inland sea deep ,long and dangerous. Northwest winds can put up waves like walls. Congrats to Kyle, Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 688
Location: Northern IL | Great job Kyle be proud of your fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2069
| Awesome fish!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | That's a beautiful fish, the dimensions and weight are almost secondary to the coloration! It must have looked amazing live.
Can one of you guys from MI explain the type of water? Its being described as an inland lake ('sea' is how one decribed it, sounds big) and a Great Lakes fish at the same time. Really interesting. A backwater off a Great Lake and/or connected to one? There are a couple similar fisheries in Ontario and they have a trophy fish history as well. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | 18,500 acres, 18 miles long, +/- 2 miles wide, 300 feet deep, gin clear... your basic trout water. The fishery is made up of lake trout, yellow perch, sm bass, brown trout, rainbow trout, whitefish, cisco, white suckers, etc. It's a natural lake that was connected to L. Michigan before a dam was put in place long ago. The muskie population isn't measured by fish per acre but by tens of acres per fish. The hours per fish average on this water, for those who know the water well, is 50-60 hours per fish.
Edited by Will Schultz 9/29/2009 7:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Beautiful fish, and the angler deserves credit for the catch and honest attempt at a clean release.
Beautiful fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 317
| WOW! Those Great lakes Spotted Muskies are truly beautiful! When I was in College, I fished Torch, Walloon, and Charlevoix-beautiful water. It looks like that angler put in his dues, well done! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| Yes to steve--I can't agree more---And what an absolutely beautiful fish--coloring and those bright red fins--Awesome!!! Congrats to the angler on a spectacular fish---wish it was me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | WOW! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 568
| Jaw droppingly awesome ! MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 48
Location: Twin Cities | Now that's just plain huge. Congratulations! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
| What a monster! Congrats to the angler. |
|
| |
|
| I'm so jealous, that is a beautiful beast! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 99
| “It doesn’t take a lot of lures to catch muskie, just a lot of time,” says Anderson, standing over his modest box of giant lures. The muskie fanatic fishes nearly every day. Over the past seven years he’s logged 4,500 hours and put 25,000 miles on his boat."
Yea....I would say he earned it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: WI | Awesome fish!
The fish looks massive in the vertical hold picture. Back in 49' they would have called it an 80lber for sure. |
|
| |
|
| that dude is a champ. living the dream for sure
after lookin at them pictures, i seen a pic of a 48.5 incher that i thought was a baby hahaha
....i hate being at school and not being able to fish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ahhhhh |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: mad chain | What a great fish!!!!!! Man those magnets made by Kermit Good have some huge fish on them this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: MN | Fish of a life time for sure. How many people can say they caught a true 50lb fish congrats. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Hey Louie, The Fat lady is warming up 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | Kermits magnets are awesome baits! Built the old fashoned way, one at a time... Even before this fish, the wait can be months to get your order, but its worth it. Kermit is a great guy, making a great mess of baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Kermit just called me to tell me about the fish. He is so excited, and I am for him. Only trouble is the longer wait I'll have for his baits now...hehehe. Great fish!! Big ones sure have been going lately. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | JKahler - 9/29/2009 11:15 PM
Awesome fish!
The fish looks massive in the vertical hold picture. Back in 49' they would have called it an 80lber for sure.
ROFLMAO.................Truely and amazing fishing. Congradualtions
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| Can someone please let me know how i can get in touch with kermit for picking a magnet up? I have been trying to find one of his cranks for a couple months now.
Thanks Matt |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Kermit Good - (810) 706-1728 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
Location: Storm Lake, IA | That fish right there is why we fish countless hours and days without catching a thing!! Im ready to go fishing!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Kermits email addy: [email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 96
| Awsome fish - hopefully Beckman or someone sends him a new net. I noticed the cheap old blue net in the boat. I had one of those years ago and it's REAL tough to land and release anything over mid-40's with it. A bigger net seemed to help me with cleaner releases. Not that I'm complaining...sounds like he did an excellent job! Again congrats! |
|
| |
|
| WOW! Does anybody know if there are any pics of the fish when it was alive like in the net or something? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Here are two pictures of the same fish. Note how the pic with the D.N.R. guy holding it makes it look like real fat 48 incher? Now look at the pic with both guys holding it dead. Looks like a 60 incher in that picture. I have always said that pictures can not show true dimensions and always allow for speculation and doubt. Every argument over true size of (released) fish stems from this fact. Some pictures make the fish look bigger then they are and some that make them look smaller then they are. Most pictures do not do the fish justice. Kyle had lots of pictures to document this fish because it was dead. They flared the gills, used verticle holds and horizontal holds, in the cooler, on the scales etc. Released pictures do not get those oppertunities. This was a tagged fish documented and weighed on certified scale. there is no controversy no doubts . But many could argue that the D.N.R. fish was not the same if all you had were the pictures. The D.N.R. picture was taken in April and the catch was in September. The D.N.R. weighed her at around 54 pounds and she weighed in at 50 after being caught. She was bigger in the D.N.R. PICTURE but looks smaller.The tag tells the tale and proves that pictures are not reliable as proof of length and girth. It still boils down to the anglers word or killing the fish. Whitnesses and or pictures prove nothing in catch and release fishing. I guess we all have to live with the challenges to our word. If anything this new Michigan record should show us all the truth about how pictures do not tell the real story . Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 10/3/2009 12:40 PM
Attachments
----------------
 new state record.jpg (27KB - 284 downloads)
2muskie.jpg (40KB - 5579 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I would like to add that this is the reason many anglers will not post pictures anymore. The arguments over length and girth, weights and claims are simply not worth the hassle . Formulas ,pictures, stories? all subject to speculation and controversy. I decided to never again claim any size or weight estimate of anything I catch. Much simpler to just say it was a good fish. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
| If you look at page 5 in the field and stream link it says he was trolling 3 rods. From my understanding, Michigan regulations state you can only troll 3 lines if you are targeting salmon or trout in the Great Lakes, otherwise the limit is 2 rods. Can anyone verify this? |
|
| |
|
| The law changed to 3 lines in April 2009.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Guest - 10/3/2009 3:36 PM
The law changed to 3 lines in April 2009..
Correct. Three lines statewide any species. KF |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Kingfisher - 10/3/2009 1:27 PM The D.N.R. weighed her at around 54 pounds and she weighed in at 50 after being caught. She was bigger in the D.N.R. PICTURE but looks smaller. Her spring weight was only estimated, she wasn't actually weighed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 155
| Can someone post a picture of the lure.Never heard of it..Thanks |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Perfect Drift - 10/6/2009 12:05 PM Can someone post a picture of the lure.Never heard of it..Thanks There is a pic of the lure in the F&S story. |
|
| |
|
| Anytime a fish is held in front of the angler the size of the fish will be exaggerated. This is a fact because the fish is closer to the camera than the angler. No photo will ever make the fish appear smaller than what it really is unless the angler is closer to the camera than the fish. Notice the first photo shows the fish being held tight to the body of the person holding it making it APPEAR smaller than it does in the second photo. The second photo has the fish being held out a considerable distance from the anglers making it APPEAR much larger.. Also notice how the size of the head APPEARS larger in relationship to the rest of the fish in the first photo. This is because the head of the fish is closer to the camera than the rest of it. |
|
| |
|
| Hmmm.... Never really thought of it that way. They should come up with a word for this thing about closer things looking bigger.... I know. I'll call it "perspective". Maybe you can do the same thing with objects like buildings. Then you could call it.... ummmm.... vanishing point. |
|
| |
|
| The point that people have to understand is there is no such thing as a photo that doesn't do a fish justice unless the angler is closer to the camera than the fish. The second example Kingfisher used shows how easy it is to make a fish APPEAR to be in the 60" class when in reality the fish is a full 5" less. Whenever you see a photo of a released supposed 60" fish, look closely to see how close the fish is to the camera compared to the person holding it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is not exactly a revelation to most everyone here, guest. |
|
| |
|
| Maybe not to most but there are obviously some that need to be straightened out and that was the purpose of the post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seriously, you are preaching to the choir on this one. There are dozens (AND DOZENS) of threads discussing photos of muskies onsite, and even a link to the WRMA study on the WR photo. |
|
| |
|
| I think you should go back and read post #403025. Obviously this is not a member of the choir you spoke of. A quote from that post..."Most pictures do not do the fish justice".
Are we to believe most pictures are taken with the fish behind the angler?
Being there are dozens (AND DOZENS) of threads discussing photos of muskies onsite, why do some people continue to push this nonsense?
I checked out that WRMA link you spoke of about the world record and found it very interesting. Illustrates my point very well and also shows that the size of a fish CAN be determined by a photo using the science of photogrammetry and yet there are still people out there that say you can't. This is downright hilarious! Photogrammetrists make a living from determining measurements from photographs and yet the world record muskie is still considered controversial. How low can you go! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| I think this is fitting here....hahaha....love this one!
Edited by Shoot2Kill 10/9/2009 1:54 PM
(Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg (84KB - 182 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Brilliant! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Awesome! haha |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1061
Location: Medford, WI | Hahah...great. Thank you for that!!!
-Jake |
|
| |
|
| That fish looks like at ate Spray's fish. And so do most. What a giant!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Pretty cool huh? Very few times do we get two photos of the same fish taken just months apart. One released and one dead. The dead one proves the size and weight. The live release by the D.N.R. could be argued by most that it is not the same fish. Color size head etc. If not for the fact that this fish was killed how many of you could have really guessed that these two pictures were the same fish? My point is still valid. Most pictures do not represent the true size either way. You can use all the tricks and science in the world and its still speculation, guess work and circumstantial evidence. No one But Louie will ever know if he lied or not. No one who has ever released a fish and claimed a size will ever be able to prove it. Weight formulas fail, thats why there are more then one lol hahahaha . Photos are doctored, etc. I once thought I could release a world record and I know today I would never claim anything of the sort. Ill let the so called experts fight it out in flame war after flame war. After reading Ramsells book I am convinced that there is a true 70 pounder out there. I hope someone whacks it, kills it and ends the battle once and for all but most of all I hope it comes on one of my baits ha ha ha ha ha ha . Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
| You just don't get it do you. Your point has no validity whatsoever. It was obvious to me you and should have been obvious to everyone else that you were attempting to support Louie Spray with the post I pointed out. You put your foot in your mouth once again by saying weight formulas fail, that's why there is more than one. The reason there is more than one is because of inaccurately taken or reported measurements and because the supporters of the old records developed formula's that would work using the phony dimensions.
What is there in Ramsell's book that convinces you there is a true 70 pounder out there? You seem to be trying to convince everyone that a muskie is capable of reaching 70 lbs. just because Spray's fish is just under that. Spray's phony record will NEVER be broken and this is supported by the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence indicating they are capable of attaining that weight. This fish has been proven by modern technology to be nowhere near it's reported length or weight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Thats funny, I never said I thought Sprays fish was as big as it is claimed. My opinion on sprays fish is as worthless as yours. Im just saying that unless you kill it you have to live with guys like you. Guys who wont even put thier name behind thier posts. I dont defend Sprays fish at all and My opinion doesnt matter because there is no way I could prove it one way or another. Thats my point. Its the attacks every time someone puts a fish forward that I have a problem with. So for me Ill not elaborate anymore. Why even try to convince anyone how big a released fish is? Photographs prove nothing period.
I just talked to a client of mine who lives in Wisconsin. His words quote( we are all expected to get these fish back in such a hurry. No extra pictures ,no time to verify anything. It seems everyone calls you a liar if you tell anyone how big your fish is. #*^@ed if you do #*^@ed if you dont. End quote
He has decided as I have to never again state the size or estimated weight of any released fish.
The legends in Larrys book and from talking to him in person. Thats why I belive there is a 70 pound fish out there. Look, it will take a 57 to 60 inch 65 pounder with a belly full of baitfish to do it. Its going to happen and when it does Ill applaude loudly. I cant believe you think I am defending sprays fish but from your last post I can see how a straw man would serve your interest. Putting words in my mouth doesnt work pal. Its proof guest, the proof and no one has that proof. And my opinion , yours and anyone elses is meaningless. Its speculation pure and simple.
For your information, the new Michigan record was 15 years old. 15 years and 50 pounds. I think she might have made 60 pounds at 21/22 years old years old. But again thats all speculation and meaningless. But is it possible? I think it is. I think McNairs fish, Obriens fish, the Green bay fish all were possible world records and there are others that with a couple of 3 pound whitefish in thier gullets go 70 pounds. But the truth? there no proof that they dont get that big. No proof that they do until one is killed that does.
The reason I posted the two pictures is because we have a once in alifetime chance to look at two pictures with a known constant. Two totally different angles, two different people . You didnt answer my question. With out knowing before hand could you tell they were the same fish? I mean come on it should be easy right? I didnt think so.
Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 10/9/2009 7:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | I see no problems of differnces between the two picture. Only thing is color but that's more of a camera thing then anything else. To me it looks like the same fish same size as well just one is help underarm and the other out reached.
People get chastized because they come on here with a wild claim and it is obvious that the out reached fish is no where near the size and especially the weight claimed.
People need to wake up and realize the pushing the fish towards the camera just does not work as well as those #*^@ vertical holds that make it impossible to see the true size of the fish.
Untill we all start using a standard on how to hold a fish for pictures will this be resolved, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Some of us have seen a lot of big fish and know what to look for in a picture to have a real good estimate of it's actual size. If you come out with a wild measurement in the high 50's to low 60's you better make sure your fish was close as trying to pass those mid 50's like recently just won't cut it. |
|
| |
|
| Well said. |
|
| |
|
| If it's impossible to tell the size of a fish from a photo how were so many of the other 60+ pound fish debunked by the NFWFHF? They didn't even use a professional photogrammetrist! In fact, why was Art Lawton's world record tossed by both record keeping bodies?
Look at Cal Johnson's IGFA record. This fish is listed as being 33.5" x 60.25" which is a larger girth to length ratio than Ken O'Brien's and almost the same as Martin Williamson's fish. Why isn't Johnson's fish shaped similar to Williamson's? You all know the answer to this one. Johnson's fish should be fatter for it's length than O'Brien's and should look almost identical to Williamson's. Any comments? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest,
Be careful saying who's point of view has validity and who's doesn't...not everyone will agree with you on that one.
This isn't and won't be a thread about WR fish. That debate is available on the Research Board, if you want to talk it over, take a look there.
This fish is known as far as exact measure, so why even discuss this here? Enough already. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 636
Location: Bloomington, MN | The angler obviously is a hardcore muskie fisherman and definitly deserves such a fish, but the article states that the fish was tagged by the DNR with an acoutic (radio) transmitter. That being stated, someone (possibly wth loose lips) knew exactly where that particular fish was residing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | No one knew where she was at the time. Only the D.N.R. has that information. Kyle would have to go to our banquet to see the tracking info in March of 2010. I dont think he is muskies inc member but I could be wrong. So no one knew where she was and many of us were even fooled as to where she was tagged myself included.
I agree with Richard 100 percent. Without a standard that everyone uses there will always be speculations and arguments over whether or not a picture tells the true story of any fish. I would think a measurement on a bump board would be a good start. Nose touching the stop and tail in view, pinched or not pinched to be determined. This would end all wild tales of length. Girth measurement at three points head ,middle and anal port. Not done with length of string and or walking a ruler around the fish ha ha ha . Sewing tapes work great for girth. Girths can be taken in the net while the fish is in the water. Without a bump board there is so much that can go wrong in a length measurement. I still do not trust any of the formulas for determining weight. I have proved them to be very inacurate every time I have tried using them. Every fish has different dimensions and a belly full of air bladder gives the same girth as one filled with baitfish. Its like a gallon of milk. when its empty it measures the same as full. Air bladders give a lot of false weights due to bloated girths.
I am very happy with our new state record. I am sad she died but happy to see the thornapple fish moved to second place. I alway thought a spotted should be our record fish. With her age at only 15 she could have grown bigger(in my opinion). They are studying this chain of lakes right now to determine the life span and spawning habits of these fish. It is my hope we do some stocking in these lakes and add some more protections to this chain such as either higher size limits or spearing bans. I think higher size limits will fly easier then going up against the dark house crowd. They wont back down and it would be a bloody fight. W e have fought them before.
I never even should have mentioned Spray. I forgot how volitile that subject is here. I just think that pictures alone are not enough evidence to determine enough to make any difference. Scales are proof. dead fish are proof. live weigh ins on certified scales are proof. This done now on Lake St. Clair tournements. They bring them in with 60 inch live wells and weigh them alive then they are taken back out and released. No speculation there. no guess work no disputes. I will still never again post a picture of a fish and claim its length or weight unless its a dead world record. Kingfisher |
|
| |
