|
|
Posts: 182
Location: musky waters of SE, WI | With all the big fish caught and released in the past few years do you think any of the records will change? For most people Catch and Release is all this sport has come to (which is good). The McNair fish, the one Jason Hamernicks client caught that would have bet the MN state record, the 59x29 everyones been talking about, and others i can't think of right now. It's like all of them have set a standard that keeping a potential world record isn't needed. So will it change? |
|
| |
|
| I hope not!
Dan Crooms ch 54 |
|
| |
|
Location: Oswego, IL | Is the grass green and the sky blue? Of course, With the hassle that goes on here with posting pictures that people can comment on, or make claims on, one of these guys here will club the s$$t out of a record ski soon enough, you almost have to for guys on here to accept it, oh and then later bash you for killing it so be careful. Isnt the internet just awsome!  I bet we will see a new record of somesort within the next two months, seems to be the year of BIG fish in a lot of species.
Edited by muskiewhored 10/14/2009 5:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=53... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 182
Location: musky waters of SE, WI | Yeah thats what im guessing is going to happen for a new record, someones going to try and release one and it won't go just like the one from michigan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 395
Location: NW WI | I just hope I'm the one that catch's it and whacks it over the head. Unlike some of the "doom and gloom/it's not cool to smile anymore' faces in the pictures of tourney winners, I'd have a perma grin on my face! |
|
| |
|
| Catch Photo Release. What a great philosophy. Done it with every muskie I've ever caught. I can't stand to see people keep, or intentionally or unintentionally harm muskies while being CPR'd. There is one fish for sure that I don't think should be CPR'd and that is the World Record. Whoever catches that fish owes it (IMHO) to the muskie world to have it officially certified as the World Record to knock the current "Record Holders" from their flimsy perch. As far as state records go, that to me is not as big a deal. I know if I caught the state record I'd whack it. Selfish? Maybe a little, but who isn't a little competitive when it comes to muskie fishing. If you want to release a state record then fine, and thank you for thinking of the future of the sport. But, if you release the world record, shame on you. By the way, until I see photos of both the length and girth on a bumpboard, don't even begin to tell me you caught and released a state or world record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 148
Location: Northwest Wi. | If someone catches a state record or the world record and decides to give it the Louisville, I just hope they have the Nads to say "I decided to keep this fish because it was a possible State/World record". Instead of the " I worked her till my arms were on fire but she wouldnt go" story... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Next state record in Illinois is for sure! Several over 40 lbs from IDNR survey at sevreal lakes! I would keep a musky if its over 40 lbs and after that I would release until over 50 lbs! Nothings wrong with that! Release all muskies and keep for big personal best for your wall or break state or even world record! More 50" muskies release than ever before......AMEN! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I don't know for sure what I'd do if I caught a WR. I had one on last year that may have aproached that size and have seen her again this year. But she would probably go right back just like every other Muskie I have ever caught. For me it is just way to much fun fishing for her and taking her out of the lake would take away all the fun. She scared the heck out me the last time she showed at boatside half way through a figure-8. It took 20 minutes for my heart to stop racing.
I guess it comes right down to why one fishes. If it is simply for fun, then I don't see what good a WR is going to do for someone. If its also partly for fame, glory and maybe a few bucks for speaking and writing fees, then I can see it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if the 'story' is fact? It's happened to me with fish over 50 twice. Could happen, and if it's what actually occured, I see no reason to alter the information available to satisfy the Muskie Cops. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 148
Location: Northwest Wi. | As long as the truth is told....Its all good. Some may feel that an intentional kill may decrease the value of the feat and therefore tell the story. Were talking a record with all the celebrity that comes with that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 462
Location: Antioch, IL | To answer the original question: Oh yeah, I think many state records and the world record will fall soon. I've seen some fish recently that are just monsters and I think that the "good" things about forums like this (sharing of tactics and info) have and will continue to advance the skills of all involved in the sport.
To answer the way this post is going: If I made my living Muskie fishing my answer might be different, but I fish for personal reasons. I don't need my name in a book or my face in a magazine. I fish because I enjoy being on the water, when it becomes a chest thumping, celebrity seeking thing I just lose interest. If I were lucky enough to ever break a state or world record none of you would ever know. There are quite a few guys on here that I truly respect. I know they love seeing and hearing about fish on a pure entertainment level, as I do, but the constant grade school level bashing and "guest" slams keep me from posting fish any more. I had a once in a lifetime trip last month, but haven't shared a word or photo because of the lack of respect I've been reading lately. I would not hold anything against the angler who does catch and keep a record. It's their right.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| State records probably will fall several times over the next decade. The world record? I don't doubt that there are one or two freaks of nature out there somehwere. As for where? maybe Georgian Bay, maybe Lac Seul, the St. Lawrence, maybe even Vermilion or Green Bay... Now, will those fish be caught?? That's not very likely, as I believe fish of that size just aren't spending their time where we fish for them, and they're not eating anything that resembles what we're trowing at them or trolling past them. IF the world record ever is broken, it will be a troller that does it, fishing deep over even deeper water, and trolling a bait that is too big to cast.
Then there's the matter of whether that fish will actually get thumped, verified and publicized, or will it just be slipped back into the water. A lot of guys would whack that fish. I'm not sure I would. I don't need the publicity, I don't need the scrutiny, and catching a world record fish might just take the fun out of muskie fishing... Think about it -- if you pretty much know you caught the biggest muskie you or anyone else will ever see? Yeah, that's cool, but I like the idea that there's always a bigger one out there. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | esoxaddict - 10/15/2009 2:20 PM
Now, will those fish be caught?? That's not very likely, as I believe fish of that size just aren't spending their time where we fish for them, and they're not eating anything that resembles what we're trowing at them or trolling past them.
You really believe that with fish like McNair's from last year lurking? It's not like a 10in jake is a really deep diving bait...not to mention the one caught on a bulldawg in georgian bay this year that was 56.5 or something and just THIIIIIIIIIIIICK. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| JRedig,
You have to look at the odds here. Every season we see what, maybe a total of 5 -10 fish over 55" from anywhere? The true monsters that are being caught fall short of the world record by enough where you have to figure that fish like McNair's are reaching the plateau of "just about as big and heavy as muskies can ever get"... There may be a freak out there swimming around, but let's be realistic. 55 pounds is pretty much a needle in a haystack even on the best trophy waters. Most of us will fish our whole lives and never break 50 pounds. I'm not saying it won't ever happen, or that it can't happen, but actually getting a world record class fish in the net? I am not holding my breath. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | huh? 5-10 over 55 total ? I think there are A LOT more than that caught each season....will there be a new world record? well the current WR is a joke.... still it will take a freak to top out over that ....I highly doubt we ever see one caught and certified that beats it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
| uh,huh, there is 1 in minnetonka that gets caught 6xs/yr. does that count for 6? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 182
Location: musky waters of SE, WI | I also forgot the one Ryan Dempsey caught in GB. 56X33.5. I hope there is more than one of those swimming out there. Theres a chance one of them might get snagged in the circus out there. |
|
| |
|
| Gee why do you think these fish exist? CPR that's why. Now what if guy's like here in MN keep releaseing these super fish, easy, they'll keep getting bigger. 55 is the new 50, maybe 58 will be the new 55. I posted my 55 on a few other sites and the only person that doubted me said it looked more like a 57.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| dcmusky - 10/15/2009 10:16 PM
[...]
55 is the new 50, maybe 58 will be the new 55. [...]
uhhhh...
Houston?
Edited by esoxaddict 10/15/2009 10:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Donk! |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | esoxaddict, there are way more fish than that caught between 55 an 60 every year out east and on georgian bay. Just because you don't read about them on the internet or this forum, doesn't mean it doesn't happen or they don't exist. Just google 1000 islands muskie fishing....just bouncing around the net I can find plenty of big fish caught every year that don't make it to this site or any of the other mainstream muskie sites, let alone the one's that don't get put on the net anywhere or even get photographed.
Please show me substantiating evidence of just how big muskies "can" get. Where is there any proof that they quit growing or that there is a limit to how big they can get? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | To answer the question? yes on both. Its just a matter of time people. Obriens fish was 65 pounds add another 5 pounds of whitefish and its 70. Its timing and catching them when they are at thier peak weight. A 62 pound musky can weigh 70 pounds if she eats 2 - 4 pound whitefish. The new Michigan fish was weighed 12 hours after the catch. 50 pounds. She was only 15 years old. McNairs fish was freaking huge. The green bay fish from a couple years ago was freaking huge. Bristows georgian bay fish from a few years ago was freaking huge. Obriens fish documented 65 pounds. W e are talking about 5 pounds not 20. Forget the older records and look at the documented weighed fish that can be verified and we are talking 5 pounds. It will take a true 65 pounder that just swallowed a 6 pound pike or Lake trout, Whitefish or other combination of forage. To get one to weigh in at 70 pounds empty is where we all get that immpossible goal syndrome. Records include stomach contents. Its just a matter of time. My guess is that a new world record can only be caught in late fall or early spring when the females have reached thier full egg mass and fat content. Add a couple nice big baitfish and she tops 70 pounds. She can come from anywhere connected to the great lakes and few other large inland lakes but I would put my money on Georgian bay or the St Lawrence. Green bay could be the dark horse that does it as well. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JRedig,
Upper confidence limits published by Casselman/Crossman et al, and many other muskie fisheries management sources. Dr. Casselman called the next WR to come from the St Lawrence when onstage at the last Muskie Symposium. Kingfisher has it right, but it's been....how long since a confirmed 70# fish has been registered? My opinion....it hasn't happened yet. I hope it happens, and sooner rather than later.
http://www.afsbooks.org/x51011xm
Interesting video about St Lawrence Muskie management
http://upload.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=481 |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Thanks for the post Steve, i've read some of those studies and seen the video's, I was trying to get at a point that other's probably had not done so. Either way, that is still not definitive proof that they can't get bigger and there is no concrete evidence that bigger fish DON'T exist. I'm gonna keep an open mind that they certainly do.
Technology and techniques are still improving by leaps and bounds to aid this. Combine that with more anglers than ever who are FANATICAL and operate under a precision methodology, it's only a matter of time. This is all my opinion obviously, but I'd bet some of those east coast fish are approaching the weight to break it, but with CPR they won't get registered.
Sure would be fun to have the bonk heard across the country or an individual state... 
Edited by JRedig 10/16/2009 11:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Yes, there are a lot of big fish caught, but how many are over 55 pounds? How many break 60 pounds? Granted, a lot of them are kept quiet, but we're talking about a 70 pound muskie here. O'Brien's fish was 65 pounds. How many fish over 65 pounds do you know of since that fish? And that was over 20 years ago. 5 pounds isn't much in terms of what a 65 pound muskie would have to eat. Kingfisher has that right. But how many 65 pound muskies are caught every year? And is a 65 pound muskie that just ate a couple 4 pound whitefish going to eat a 10" jake? or anything else for that matter?
I'm not saying it won't ever happen, I'm not saying that there aren't a couple muskies out there pushing 70#. But the odds of that fish actually being caught, and verified? Like I said I am not holding my breath.
Edited by esoxaddict 10/16/2009 12:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | Will a 70+ pound fish be caught, most likely. Will it be kept, and if so will it be correctly verified, most likely not. That's my 2 cents. If I caught it, you can bet it would get thumped, because I am a ego maniac! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | Redig come N next season, we'll give you a look at some water. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities |
Kinda funny to find some old threads: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=30...
Edited by JRedig 10/16/2009 4:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | esoxaddict - 10/16/2009 1:06 PM
Yes, there are a lot of big fish caught, but how many are over 55 pounds? How many break 60 pounds? Granted, a lot of them are kept quiet, but we're talking about a 70 pound muskie here. O'Brien's fish was 65 pounds. How many fish over 65 pounds do you know of since that fish? And that was over 20 years ago. 5 pounds isn't much in terms of what a 65 pound muskie would have to eat. Kingfisher has that right. But how many 65 pound muskies are caught every year? And is a 65 pound muskie that just ate a couple 4 pound whitefish going to eat a 10" jake? or anything else for that matter?
I'm not saying it won't ever happen, I'm not saying that there aren't a couple muskies out there pushing 70#. But the odds of that fish actually being caught, and verified? Like I said I am not holding my breath.
Very correct, they are not caught every day and there have been only a few in recent history that could be that girl. But since catch and release fishing started the biggest of the big have been getting bigger. Before they killed all huge fish. There has been a long lapse in huge fish due to the harvesting of them before. There are probably 1 or two Muskies over 60 pounds caught every year. There were two last year. Two or three the year before. Those were released. I believe bigger then most of you. I think there Muskies out there in places where they have never seen a lure that are 75 pounds plus. Areas of Georgian bay , Lakes Michigan and Superior, Huron and Ontario. These are big water roamers that rarely come in to shallow waters. But Its just guessing on my part. Its that Idea though that drives me to chase them. To go out there and troll for days on water that no one else fishes. To look around the drown rivermouths along Michigans west coast when the Whitefish are running. She could be right out in front of Muskegon this november slugging down 4 pound Whitefish . The truth? No one really knows how big they get. Studies can be made and lots of money spent only to be dashed aside when proven wrong. I love the lore, the legends, the myths, the excitment I get when I think things like, if a fish hits this 15 inch lure it could be the world record. No one on earth thought a Brown trout could get to 45 [pounds, or RAINBOW TO 40 POUNDS BUT THEY DID and they did it this year. World records are falling every year. The musky record will fall. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | I agree. Fish are out there. And in some places I'd bet the actual numbers are much better than any of us may think. I am with the idea that there are fish out there that basically no one has ever seen nor caught, that may take a stroke of luck to get. But they can be got. We are fishermen and women. They are fish. We win. Not always, but sometimes. The number of those "sometimes" are growing more each year. There are 60+ inch fish lots of places. I've probably seen a few. Many have. I'm not special. More will be caught, verified better than some other recent fish if for the simple reason guys are being more careful. They'll be making sure to have better measurement gear and are learning more all the time and advancing their skills. I hope its me that puts it together. Catches the WR. I'd be almost as happy when someone else does it. Just a matter of time, and I do believe it will be sooner rather than later. |
|
| |
|
| They dont get that big
Its all math,growth + environmental factors + local weather and water conditions+ life expectancy = it cant happen
Maybe 60 to 65 but I think 60 to 63 is tops,Williamson may be the only 1 we see like that
Dont get overwhelmed with some of the girths thrown out there these days,measuring them on a bump board and in the water gives different girths sizes,In water is the most accurate in given the true approximation of the weight of the fish.
Keep in mind,I have not just seen 1 fifty incher,I have seen more than any person alive or dead in exception of 1 other person
The last 60 pounder and most probably the only one or close was Williamson,all others are 55 pounds or so
All great big fish none the less
As far as rainbows ,they are triploid genetically altered |
|
| |
|
| Once you undertsand the biology of cold bloded animals and how their enviroment affects them ,you will understand that its nearly impossible for muskie to grow in excess of 65 pounds
Just look at salt water crocks that grow all year round,speculated to grow to 24 feet but the biggest is 19 feet or so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBkPi-35QcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7yAvVIHZPg&feature=related
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Is it possible? Perhaps.
Here is a quote from Casselman and Crossman (1986): "The estimated maximum ultimate [using the von Bertalanffy growth model] weight would be 33.3kg [73.3lb].... If a muskellunge grew at an excessively rapid rate for its entire life and lived to a very old age, it would be theoretically possible for it to attain a weight equal to, or even slightly heavier than, the present world record."
Casselman, J.M. and Crossman, E.J. 1986. Size, age, and growth of trophy muskellunge and muskellunge-northern pike hybrids - The Cleithrum Project, 1979-1983. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 15: 93-110.
Edited by esox50 10/17/2009 6:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | marc thorpe - 10/17/2009 6:22 AM
They dont get that big
Its all math,growth + environmental factors + local weather and water conditions+ life expectancy = it cant happen
Maybe 60 to 65 but I think 60 to 63 is tops,Williamson may be the only 1 we see like that
Dont get overwhelmed with some of the girths thrown out there these days,measuring them on a bump board and in the water gives different girths sizes,In water is the most accurate in given the true approximation of the weight of the fish.
Keep in mind,I have not just seen 1 fifty incher,I have seen more than any person alive or dead in exception of 1 other person
The last 60 pounder and most probably the only one or close was Williamson,all others are 55 pounds or so
All great big fish none the less
As far as rainbows ,they are triploid genetically altered
Well Marc, you just answered the question. 63 pounds and 7 pounds of baitfish = 70 pounds. KF |
|
| |
|
| marc thorpe - 10/17/2009 5:22 AM Keep in mind,I have not just seen 1 fifty incher,I have seen more than any person alive or dead in exception of 1 other person Can I get your autograph?
Edited by Baby Mallard 10/19/2009 8:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 86
Location: University of Hartford | pretty sure of yourself.... What about the people who fish Georgian and dont talk about it? im sure that there are a few people that have unimaginable numbers of 50"+ fish.. |
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | I wonder how many GIANT Muskies he has caught in his life ?????????
Edited by PIKEMASTER 10/19/2009 5:35 PM
(normal_mikelazarusmuskie.gif)
Attachments
----------------
 normal_mikelazarusmuskie.gif (69KB - 363 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, folks, allow Marc his musings. He made an excellent point on Muskie upper confidence limits, and has held a few big fish. |
|
| |
|
| I am amazed at how many people have lost or seen a state or world records on all kinds of bodies of water all over muskie land and..........then you have someone like Lazarus or Thorpe that catch more mid 50s than most and they don't see them......kind of puts things in perspective IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| The Big Chip, good genetics, natural reproduction with a rich history. Flowages or a great lakes connected fish. |
|
| |
|
| I would be very careful to question Marc Thorpe... his opinion is based on years of handling giants.
In my opinion...
State Records Broken... a resounding yes, state records will be broken in the future
WR-wont be broken unless the current world record is disproved |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Questioning anyone here is fine as long as it's done tactfully.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | As far as I know Ken Obrien only caught one musky and it was 65 pounds. Also the Green bay fish of a couple years ago was a one timer. McNair didnt handle hundreds of big muskies and yet these three guys have all caught fish over 60 pounds. There are hundreds of Michigan charterboat captains that have never caught a Brown Trout over 30 pounds and yet some guy managed to break the world record(over 45 pounds) in a river. Marc, just because you and the rest of us have not caught one does not mean they are not there. It just means we have not been in the right place at the the right time. Lazarus, Thorpe, Bristow, Mills, Clark , Jones, to name just a few guys who have handled fish over 50 pounds. Some of these guys have caught several over 50 pounds . But it matters not does it? That just means they catch a lot of big fish. Then some rookie comes along fishing for walleye and puts a 65 pounder in the boat. And again Ill say it, a 62 pound slob with two 4 pound whitefish in its gut weighs 70 pounds. That is how it will go down. It will take a solid 60 pounder with a gut full of bait that decides to eat one too many and gets tagged. Anyway, this is always the winter time question isnt it? For me you can run all the scientific tests you want and it wont prove a thing . Photos prove nothing, certified scale and length measurement. If you catch it? do it right because a hundred self proclaimed experts will challenge it, bash it and or try and prove you are lying. Good luck to anyone who seeks the record. On the day it falls I will dance all over the internet boards saying I told you so. lol. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| just think. i has not even started snowing yet. i just hope the next guy that gets a potential record.
HAS THICK SKIN LIKE A RHINO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | If I caught the next world record I'd kill it just to see how many negative posts I could get. That might be more entertaining than actually catching a world record! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Kingfisher - 10/17/2009 5:50 PM
For me you can run all the scientific tests you want and it wont prove a thing . Photos prove nothing,
"There are ways today in our technology to determine the length and possible weight of a Muskie based on a picture." Jim Bunch, July 2009 Lunge Log.
I find it interesting that people speculate that the person who catches the proverbial 70 pound muskie would catch any flak regarding its size. Obviously, it would have to be killed and like the new Michigan record there would be tons of verifiable pictures.
Take a good look at that Michigan record again and try to imagine something 20 pounds heavier. It would boggle your mind to look at the pictures of it because it would utterly dwarf every muskie you have ever seen before.
Who doubts the size of the Michigan record... or either of Gelb's fish for that matter? The pictures of those monsters obviously coincide with the claim so nobody has trouble believing in their size. The same deal would apply to a hypothetical 70... the lucky person would be fishing royalty and embraced by the muskie community.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Right now we are coming into the best time to catch that fish. Until the day that water is iced over. Good luck Marc, Mike, Dale , Sal, Joe,Jody, Jason and everyone else that is on the best waters in the world. I have faith that someone is going to do it. I hope its someone using one of my lures. That would put the finishing touches on a tremendous year for us. And good luck and a safe fall season to all of the rest of you who like me do not live on great water but love the lore and legends of this fantastic fish. Tight lines and sharp hooks. Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 10/18/2009 12:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Allow me to explain my thoughts which have led me to believe there is a maximum potential.
Its is from observation,reading studies on cold blooded animals and fish in particular that have led me to from this opinion
My post may have been to short to understand and I apologies for the arrogant tone of one of my phrases.
Yes I can humiliated myself,I do it every day when I look in the mirror,the day only gets better from there on end
I have spoken with DR Casselman about his maximum growth chart,even he admits it is a speculated calculated growth chart,there are many variables which are not factored.Like all species in which growth charts are calculate for.
He also does not have the information on many of years past great big fish including mine and Mike Lazarus and many others.
We must understand that in most regions growth does not occur all season,it occurs during the months of June to September in length and October to December for girth,the retention and building of fat and egg development.These factors can be somewhat slowed or increased depending of yearly and seasonal water temps and weather conditions.
Keep in mind fish do not gain weight during the course of the summer due to high metabolism in accordance average summer water temps. Un seasonal cool summers will allow the fish to retain a certain amount of weight but generally they stabilize in weight according to their physical features and make up which is somewhat below maximum girth grow potential.
also given the cylindrical physical make up and feature of the fish
a 55 inch fish would support IN WATER a girth slightly more than have its length which would equate to 27.5 inches in girth,yes there are the exceptions of 28 and possibly 29.
Williamson s fish which supported a 31 inch girth measured laying flat and out of the water according to my information was above normal.
Allow me to speculate that if the girth was taken in the water ,it would have supported a 29 inch girth which would placed it in the maximum norm.
Some fish display great length but slender back ends,the heaviest fish seem to display uniformity from head to tail.
The fish that display uniformity could be at maximum health period during their growth years/life while fish displaying great length but slender tail sections or back end may have exceeded or surpassed their maximum health and growth life period in their lives
We must also factor in angling pressure,many fish have shown signs of sulking and ceased feeding for a period after being angled and displayed avoidance afterward.
I suspect that this experience of angling may impact a fish feeding behavior which would equate to lack of growth.
From my observation on the Big O and Big Flo and many other regions of fish pictures I have observed,this is a important factor and determining factor which is an addition to all other variables which would allow for maximum growth
I do believe and from my observations and measuring from in water to out of water girth measurement there is a discrepancy of 1,5 to 3 inches from in water girth measurement to out of water girth measurements.I suspect many of the big girths we are seeing are out of water measurement.
This has led many to weigh there fish instead of girthing them,some do girth also their fish along with weighing them,its seems their weight and measurements seem to correlate with my thinking.
I seldom girth and do not weigh fish anymore,simply due to limiting my presence and pressure but most of all out of water and human contact to the fish
One must stare the ennemy in the eye if he wishes not minimize his impact on the fish
For one,we must break down each region which is producing great big fish and the physical make up and build of the fish.Each region shows variables in physical build and characteristics.
There are many regions which posses and have produced great big fish of 50 pounds or mid to 58 pounds or so.
Most if not all those fish were at peak growth and weight gain.
The question all ask is : The fish bite again,what says it wont eat more.
My reasoning is : Did the fish eat the lure cause it was eating or did it hit the lure because it was invading its space of peace and tranquility.
I do not believe fish hit lures because they are eating all the time,I suspect many times they hit lures simply because it disturbs them in there resting area, whether it be shallow or deep.
For those that fish above the norm,they will understand my next thinking.
Ever notice you catch fish all summer them the fish somewhat disappear then show up gain and they are big!
Maybe we are catching them when they are not eating!
But catching them when they are being disturbed.
I have observed the behavior of fish and its feeding tendency,I suspect a fish that hits a lure from the head or mid body is feeding but a fish that hits coming from behind,I suspect its hit from disturbing the fish.Many times those fish are slight hooked from the inside of the mouth but many times its from the outside in which would indicate an aggressive behavior towards the intruding lure.
We are living in the ear of the best muskie fishing in history and the era of educated anglers,If there were 60 pounders,we would be catching them on a regular basis
There are many of today's guides and anglers which specialize in great big fish,They are not catching them.
In all exclusion of the NFWHF
First lets understand that in most cold water regions 50 is attained generally between 18 to 24 years.Muskies are speculated to live until 30 years of age.
When we factor that most living animals live out their lives to 80% of life expectancy,we can somewhat speculate that most muskies reach the pinnacle of there lives somewhere between 24 and 27 years old.Some do live out to 30 years old.
They do not continue growth all there lives some just like all animals cease growth at 48,50,53 and the magical few will attain 58 inches or so.
Most cold blooded animals seem to show lack of weight gain in the last year or 2 of there lives. Which would indicate that for a fish to be at its maximum potential the fish generally would be aged somewhere between 18 and 24 years of age.
Georgian bay has produced most probably the only 60 pounder ,speculation of Obrien's fish still abound but Williamson fish is un-disputably 61 pounds,It was aged at 17 years old ,which from all indication was a fast growth.Now to make clear the gonads were never verified to my understanding and information so the speculation that this fish was sterile is un-founded.
Georgian bay has produced many 50 pound to mid 50 pound muskies but like many regions it faces some environmental issues and the importance of all ,the diminishing of its forage base. The instability of weather which has direct effect on the feeding behavior of fish and most importantly the stability of water levels and temperature.
Although it has produced many 50 pound fish,the length or maximum length do not seem to be common,fish in excess of 55 inches.
I still believe that Georgian bay given its vastness could produce a fish slightly bigger than any other area. But not 70 pounds and I would be surprised at 65.
Green Bay posses the possibility of producing such a big fish also if the angling pressure does not override and cease the potential maximum growth rate.
It has produced a few 50 pound fish but once again at its early stage in evolution, maximum length seems to be somewhat of a small minority of fish.
It was also stocked some 20 years ago or so which many of the first generation of fish can and will attain maximum growth rate,the second and third generations seem to display a slower and lesser growth rate. What I have not quite understood yet about the Big Green is average water temps and growth rate speed,its seems from my understanding and information that the growth rate is accelerated which would indicate that these fish may not live to full expectancy but this is not yet understood
MN has produced some giant fish also,again 1st generation and fishing pressure seems to have created a form of avoidance in some areas.Once again the average maximum length seems to fall short somewhat.Although some giant are caught year to year,I do believe that methods of girthing maybe the variable that we are not looking at.
The recent 58 incher and Jonenesi and Dahms fish are example of giants that do exist but once again we are looking at mid 50 pound fish which seem to display the peak of their life and physical being,The only variable which needs clarifying is whether girths were taken in water or out of water which would give a true approximation of their weight .
Great big fish none the less
The Big O and the Big flo have displayed length but due to specific fishing pressure and current factors these fish display different physical features and make up.
The Big O fish have had specific angling pressure which has led to avoidance and somewhat ceased weight gains during the fall months.
I have personally observed 3 individual of 58 inches,2 of those were approx 45 to 47 pounds,I do not believe these 2 females posses the the physical make up of attaining 58 pounds or better,There is 1 female which her physical make up and characteristics does meet the needed make to attain possibly 58 pounds,Finding her during the prime maximum weight gain period is like looking for a needle in a hay stack.I suspect avoidance and possibly angling experience may hamper her feeding ability.
We did capture her last year at 58x26 (in water girth measurement) last year due to unseasonably cool waters,the year previous she was 58x25
For all others I suspect angling pressure has affected there feeding ability or willingness.
The barbosa fish after many discussion with Mike Lazarus the fish may have been 55 to 57 pounds and the Lapointe fish somewhere around 58 pounds(that fish is now dead from old age)
The Big Flo has produced many big fish but the one thing many do not understand is the current things.Many fish that lay in current use there swim bladders to rest upon the bottom to allow themselves to lunge upwards to feed,These fish although show some very nice girth,most have air trapped in their swim bladders which leads to abnormal girths not supported by weight due to the dimension of the fish.
Again the methods of girthing whether in water or out of water may lead to discrepancies in the girth of the fish.
The Mcnair fish in my opinion is around 55 to 57 pounds and at its maximum growth period at the time of the season and her life,without factoring the trapped air in her swim bladder.
Lac Seul and LOTW seem to show signs of similar issues as the Ottawa
When you factor all these regional variables and add environmental issues + weather + water conditions + angling pressure+ maximum life expectancy + maximum life period growth = limited possibilities of a fish exceeding 65 pounds or better
C&R is great resource management tool and solutions but it is not the end all of end all,
Post Mortality is a big factor and more an individual gets captured year after year or several times a years,Higher are the odds that post mortal release will ensue.
I do believe state records can and will be broken if harvested
I suspect we may have seen the biggest fish ever captured in Williamson fish
There is a possibility that one slighty bigger may exist but unless harvested we will never know
In hopes this further clarifies my views on the matter,Although I am not a biologist,I am an enthusiast of the species and understanding its life evolution and behavior.
At this point in my evolution of muskie fishing,its goes beyond the great big fish,its about the great big fish and I am only as good as my clients are.
Tks Steve W,I suspect you may have had some inclination were I was going with this
marc thorpe
|
|
| |
|
| Baby Mallard,I appreciate the request but unfortunately I do not sign autographs.The only autographs I sign are the checks for my Child Support and the Mother of my kids Fancies collecting them hahahahaha
Its all in good due, just my humor at looking at life! |
|
| |
|
| The whole issue is unlike many chasers of big fish, the vast majority of musky anglers aren't equipped with the resources and where with-all to produce an actual IGFA world record.
When I say actual, I mean actual. Sure there are a lot of big fish being caught, but I believe and I'm sure many will agree (not trying to be a jerk or get things started here but...) many of these "record-class" fish being caught virtually every month have got to be slight exaggerations or miscalculations.
And for a legit world record, you need flawless information, weight to the ounce on an IGFA currently certified scale, an IGFA certified weigh master to weigh it on land, a IGFA certified biologists signature after inspection, 100% correct photos and information about location, equipment, and 2 witnesses at time of catch and time of weigh.
Maybe some guides have all of this information and list of certified contacts... But the average guy?...
Sure the FWFHOF has some certificates that make you believe you have some sort of WR, but the only true judge of true records, is the IGFA. And unfortunately most of us don't have the tools and resources to get it done.
Jan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Let us not forget that all it takes is one fish to break the world record. One unusually large, genetically mutant fish to break the current record and for someone to get lucky and catch her. How many eight foot tall people do you see walking around? But giant people do exist and so do giant Muskies.
Here is a link to the tallest man ever. Will there some day be a nine foot man. Possibly.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/human_body/extreme_bodi...
Most Muskies never grow past 50 lbs and few ever grow past 60 lbs. But some have. Can a Muskie grow to be larger than 65 lbs? Not a normal Muskie, but a genetic mutant could and that is what it will take.
All said, it is fun to dream about catching a world record and there is nothing wrong with that. But its also probably best to not get to serious about it either.
Good fishing all. |
|
| |
|
| Marc Thorpe claims a large muskie's girth is 1.5" to 3" less if measured in the water than if measured out of the water. This he says is because the swim bladder expands when the fish is taken out of the water. If this is true the standard 800 weight formula should work very well with released muskies IF the girth is taken while the fish is in the water. The standard 800 weight formula (girth x girth x length / 800) was developed from dead muskies with collapsed swim bladders and on these it works very well. If the girth truly expands 1.5" to 3" when the fish is removed from the water this easily explains why the formula would show exaggerated and inconsistent results on these live releases.
As a side note, the girth on both the Spray and Johnson record's were said to have been taken by the taxidermists when the fish were dead meaning the swim bladders were completely collapsed. This means the Spray record would of had a girth of 34.25" and the Johnson record a girth of 36.5" when they were first removed from the water. Gee, the McNair fish didn't even come close! |
|
| |
|
| Do you believe TWO of these genetically mutant muskies could have been taken only three months apart during the same year as they supposedly did in 1949?
We know giant people do exist but the same cannot be said of giant muskies. With muskies it's all speculation because there are no known LEGITIMATE examples of muskies over 60" or over 65 lbs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That I'd agree with. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | And the guy that will catch it will most likely not even be fishing for Muskies. Like Ken Obrien who was trolling for walleyes.....
Time to lighten up and get out fishing! |
|
| |
|
| It's funny... People were as "full of it" in the 1940's as they are now! People need to get a grip. Your exaggerations can only get so big before they are just plain idiotic... And they're getting that way now. If your going to tout a record you better have the all the ingredients to back it... Like a fish in the freezer. Because your asking for a lashing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 719
| Interesting reading Marc, thanks for the detailed thoughts.
Certainly a new WR would be a mutant of sorts, out of the norm, a needle in a haystack so to speak....and then someone has to get a hook in her. Plausible, maybe not....possible ???? and now you have to consider that you may actually be chasing a record that really doesn't even exist... a ghost of sorts...maybe even something not actually possible. |
|
| |
|
Location: Oswego, IL | Amazing and detailed info Mark.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I girthed a couple fish this summer at about 22-23" in the water and out..interestingly they were the same in and out of the water..maybe the larger girths of these super giants in the 28"+ girth will be different in and out of the water?
regardless, great info Marc, I guess I am on the side of the fence that doesn't think we will ever see a 67+ lb musky ever caught and thumped....as Marc notes, to this day the heaviest that he feels is legit was 61 lbs. Yes it only takes a couple 4 lb whitefish to surpass that mark but the odds of that happening? it's like the perfect storm....I think there is a better chance to win the powerball lottery...
Edited by BNelson 10/19/2009 5:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Skept, AKA J,
What? Please elaborate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| As of last month (9/27/09) MI has a new state record for a Great Lakes ski, 56.24" w/ 27" girth, weighed 50lbs+8ozs. And though it will bring tears of frustration to some people, that fish is going on the wall.
Hey Steve, your "Miskie Cops" are my "Muskie Police". Folks who demand that we adhere to their current standards of behavior. I almost quit my current muskiesinc chapter because of the muskie police zealots. But I'm gonna quietly stick by, pass on the BS and learn from the excellent members and their input.
Edited by Ranger 10/19/2009 6:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: branchburg NJ | Is the measured weight of the MI state record fish similiar to the weight the formula for muskie weight spits out based on length and girth? Just curious to see what the difference will be. |
|
| |
|
| What I mean is it seems like a trend that these "Super Fish" are being caught so regularly last several seasons. No doubt that fishing is getting better but really? This guy got a 58 incher that guy got a 62. This fish is over 55 lbs, 60 lbs, whatever World record, state record, yada yada. None of these gargantuan beasts have real concrete proof of true weight to claim such a title or bragging rights as a record. Sorry for the bad picture time and time again just isn't cutting it when such claims are laid. Theyre as accurate as big foot yet they want to brag that they caught a musky that is of astronomical proportions for 10 seconds of fame. Instead all they get is worship from a group on their knees, and ridicule from a group laughing at it. bottom line is you better have big foot in the freezer before you tell people you caught him.
Sworral does that better explain what I mean? and what is akaj |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Unless the fish is dead, it's all blind faith.
Was the fish that big or wasn't it?? Did the guys screw up the measurements, or just not know what they were doing??
Are these guys liars or telling the truth??
We'll never know.
All we know is what we can verify in a dead fish.
And it seems some of our historic dead fish may be lies as well.
I guess I just go fishing and concentrate of my own catches. Doesn't seem to be any point or benefit in worrying about someone else's.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | I like many don't totally believe a lot of this monster business. Do these immense fish exist? Of course they do, but it seems in the past, we would hear about one every few years.
Ever since Linda Rice's 57 was given so much exposure and face time, the blitz has been on and it would seem that many musky fisherman want that same praise - And may stretch their tapes imagination to get it.
When Luke Ronnestrand and I get together we always seem to discuss fish dimensions. However, since Thorpe brought new ideas to light, now we can start our discussions over - or at least a new chapter.
I myself have caught some biggun's but never boated a musky 50 pounds or better - Have come close a couple times, but just have never reached that benchmark. Luke has put the number on the board a couple time's and he has seen GIANTS in many states and in Ontario. He and I agree that it would take an grotesquely huge fish, the likes no one has ever seen before to break the questionable world record size. Does it exist? Probably, that is why I seriously / jokingly had a 66" bump board made and have a International Game Fish annually certified 75# scale in my boat - Because I'm gonna land that pig! And when I do I don't want any question! Not to mention, as much as I promote C&R if it was without a doubt a record - It would go home with me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Skeptic,
That what I thought, you seemed to be somewhat accusatory. I'm mystified as to why you are so critical of released fish, you are one of the champions of CPR today, correct? In the case of the last couple fish that made the 'news', the anglers who actually boated the fish didn't say much at all, most of the speculation was from folks looking at the images and either disagreeing or agreeing with the 'claimed' size. I submit many of the folks you might be accusing by proxy at least made little attempt for any fame at all. Some have very clear images and good measurements and clearly caught a very big fish, so why even worry about it...the fish was released and can't hold any record of any kind anyway.
Also known as j. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| I've been told this fish had a 28.5" girth out of the water and a 30" girth in the water, of course the water was 39 degrees when taken and that may or may not of played a roll in the larger size.
Attachments
----------------
girth-a-saurus.jpg (144KB - 2112 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | I read a book a few years ago, and it presented a very interesting and compelling theory. My memory is poor, and I could never convey the theory with the clarity and complexity that was presented in the book, so I will summarize very briefly... Man is driven by the ego... The ego drives EVERYTHING WE DO.
I think the stereotypical personality associated with muskie fishing is even more centered around the ego. It’s not necessarily bad, rather just a statement. It explains why all this matters to "us".
I think that as we progress up the ladder with the size of our catches, we feel proud or special as a result of the accomplishment. The bigger the fish, the bigger our perception of the accomplishment. Some of the catches are luck based, some are skill based. Regardless, our ego craves recognition. To be a muskie fisherman, you must be passionate about the fish. If you are not, you are not a muskie fisherman. The difficulty of catching the species requires the passion.
Our egos demand that we define our place, and our "rank" within the muskie community. When we catch a large fish, we compare ourselves and our fish to the rest of the community.
Where we get in trouble and the emotions fly is when we have handled or observed first hand a certain size specimen and are able to establish a strong point of reference. Once we get there, it becomes easier (in our mind) to judge fish of similar size. The ego forces us to compare, to further define our position or rank within the muskie community. i.e. I caught a 55 x 24 and there is no way "that fish" has the same girth mine did...
So where am I going with this... In the end, there are very few people, if anyone, who has enough time or money to be able to spend the hours needed to observe and experience all of the areas that have catchable populations of record quality fish.
Because of this, in my opinion, there will be "experts" from different regions or bodies of water who can speak very credibly about that region. For example, Marc Thorpe and his network have a very credible perspective on the Eastern Region. (Because of Marc's passion, experience, involvement with Muskies Canada, and general interest in the fish for so many years, I think he offers an above average and broader perspective on the species...) There are other areas such as Georgian Bay, Western Larry, Eagle, Select areas of the great lakes, etc, which will also have people (mentioned earlier by Kingfisher) who have spent more time in their respective region/lake than anyone else who can speak credibly about that particular body.
But I don't think anyone, including the scientists have the view of all bodies of water and ultimate potential for length or girth. Statistics and science may suggest a theoretical possibility, but that probably will not account for the genetic freak.
There will be continued speculation of what is, and what is not possible based on our experiences, education, exposure to data, etc. In the end, the only way the controversy will quiet down is when a legal, verified, witnessed giant is harvested.
I personaly hope it happens to a musky fisherman on one of the top lakes mentioned within this post. I hope there is no way it can be disputed.
Until then, the discussions are fun, educational, interesting, and it all adds to the mistique of the muskie. Keep the discussions alive... Our ego craves it!
Edited by Chadster 10/20/2009 5:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Chadster, that is a great post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| The Michigan fish I described above is on the cover of Woods-n-Water News, and the stats I quoted are from the article. November 2009 issue, check it out yourself.
"Our egos demand that we define our place, and our "rank" within the muskie community. When we catch a large fish, we compare ourselves and our fish to the rest of the community."
Well written post, but not for me, Chadster. I'll die content if I never caught another muskie. Fishing is fun but my best shines elsewhere.
Edited by Ranger 10/19/2009 9:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| In the long-run, for some of us, our CPR values will likely evolve into not hooking the fish in the first place. Yea yea, call me PETA, whatever, but that's where I see it headed and I said it years ago.
Wouldn't it be more fair, and much more exciting, to meet a 50# muskie under water, nose to nose, and then take the pic as you wonder if you will be chomped on as you retreat? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Holy cow giroux! How long was that pig! That's what I'm looking for! That had to be pushing 50 pounds!
Edited by Jsondag 10/19/2009 9:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sworral do I know you?? you talk like you know me? I do prctice catch and release but the internet and this site promote exaggerations that should be prepared to be commented on. Aka Sammy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Ranger - 10/19/2009 9:04 PM
In the long-run, for some of us, our CPR values will likely evolve into not hooking the fish in the first place. Yea yea, call me PETA, whatever, but that's where I see it headed and I said it years ago.
Wouldn't it be more fair, and much more exciting, to meet a 50# muskie under water, nose to nose, and then take the pic as you wonder if you will be chomped on as you retreat?
Not quite 50 pounds but neat none the less!
Attachments
----------------
mug.jpg (22KB - 441 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Well said, Chad! I never knew you were such an talented writer! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I've seen pictures of four or five fish in the last year that I believe could be held and photographed in a way that would make most folks believe they WERE the world record fish. I think the current world's record is a lot like some of the really big breasts you see at the beach--there's a clear matter of enhancement that a natural beauty should not have to be compared with. Marty Forman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Funny I just saw that pic the other day. It was a short fish but my gosh what a girth That fish was caught by a member of the Arrowhead MI chapeter a few years back.... One of the most impressive fish over the last fiver or so years even if she doesn't push 55 or 60" .
Awsome fish J and congrats on catching and releasing that pig. What a memory.
May she visit your boat again very soon!!!!
Steve |
|
| |
|
| The intent and purpose of my post was not to give credibility or diss-credit any of the recent captures.
If anyone would like to discuss some of the recent captures on ANOTHER THREAD,I will gladly share my observations on the physical features of those captures and explain why those fish are of certain weights in my opinion and why they have attained maximum growth rate at the pinnacle of their evolutionary growth rate in their life.
Many of the explanation are within my post,The evolutionary growth in length and in girth were mathematically calculated and based on my observations throughout the years and considering many of the recent captures.
Along with information on many of the fish that are un-known to be caught but were weighed with measurements taken.
The numbers seem to indicate my beliefs
the purpose of the post is to give folks some idea of the limitation and potentials that trully exist in the growth of muskies.
Unlike humans,animals generally cease eating when they are full
Digestion can take up to 3 days during summer months given the high metabolism and surrounding water temps and every 5 days or more during cold water periods.
Feeding periods is generally an individualistic thing,they do not all feed at once and may not feed for days on end,maybe even weeks,weather does not trigger all fish to eat,but I suspect as they attained a certain size or age,they individually feed according to individual physical and metabolic needs.
Mutation or altered genetics generally do not occur naturally causing excessive growth but more so abnormalities in physical features of most animals: 3 toes,2 arms,stub arms,stub legs and so on
Gigantism is disease which affects growth hormones from functioning adequately,generally associated to humans and very few other mammals
Acceleration of growth rates generally leads to shorter life expectancy in most living animal
Utilization of air in the swim bladder is mostly used for laying on the bottom or laying on the bottom in fast current.
I have witnessed on several occasions muskies coming up to the surface to take a Gulp of air and have witnessed and experienced air in-trapped in fish while fishing high current areas including the 1000 islands region.
The Williamson fish display the very specific characteristics and physical features I described.
Obrien fish like someone mention was a small guy and the picture we see,the fish head was cut so separating it from the body gives the allusion of a giant head.
It was also take with a wide angles lens thus distorting the actual size of the subject.
A great big fish
some of the recent captures that attained 60 inches,did not surpass 54 pounds or mid 50 pounds,some were harvested and weighed.
The original measurement were inaccurate also
Like I said,may of the great big fish captured in this decade may have had discrepancies in the methods of measuring the girth
Most muskies come within proximity of structure and can be captured.Muskies are lazy by nature and will come withing close proximity to areas where they can be captured,they generally just don't hover in the water,simply because this physical effort consumes energy,most living matter on earth conserves energy for feeding and traveling/migratory purposes.Most migratory fish tend to utilize allot of the energy that would allow for more fat retention and weight gain,thus migratory fish would generally show characteristics of being lean.
each region posses varied densities
The purpose an intent is to give some understanding and potentials and limitations to the species
the main factors to retain are evolutionary growth periods and evolution life growth cycles and physical features and make up of the species from various regions
the secondary factor is whether the fish was girth ed In Water or Out of Water which in my observations has shown discrepancies in the accuracy of weight speculation for Out of Water measured fish.
Fish girth ed in the water seem to display a closer proximity in weight to generally guest estimate calculations.
Tks for the comments and I am glad that this may be informative in the limitations and potentials regarding the species
Chad great post
|
|
| |
|
| BNelson,your observations are correct
My post is reflective of fall fish
Summer fish seem not to show much variance due to their lean summer physical characteristics
marc thorpe |
|
| |
|
| Mark
Do leech lake fish grow to quickly to live past 20 years or better yet when do you feel they stop growing? 10, 13, 18 ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| giroux - 10/19/2009 8:36 PM
I've been told this fish had a 28.5" girth out of the water and a 30" girth in the water, of course the water was 39 degrees when taken and that may or may not of played a roll in the larger size.
I caught this fish and it had a 28 1/2 inch girth on the board, measured twice. It was never measured in the water so whomever told you that is mistaken...
Jim Roerig |
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| Jsondag - 10/19/2009 9:15 PM
Holy cow giroux! How long was that pig! That's what I'm looking for! That had to be pushing 50 pounds!
52 1/2 inches. Standard formula put it at 53.3 lbs. When I held it it was full of fish, full belly. I'm not sure the air bladder had anything to do with girth on this fish. It was simply huge...
Funny when pics of this fish hit the internet no one diputed the length, girth. How things have changed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | Silver Scale - 10/20/2009 9:58 AM
Jsondag - 10/19/2009 9:15 PM
Holy cow giroux! How long was that pig! That's what I'm looking for! That had to be pushing 50 pounds!
52 1/2 inches. Standard formula put it at 53.3 lbs. When I held it it was full of fish, full belly. I'm not sure the air bladder had anything to do with girth on this fish. It was simply huge...
Funny when pics of this fish hit the internet no one diputed the length, girth. How things have changed.
How could you dispute the measurements... That fish looks like what you state or bigger.... What a slob...
This would be in contrast to a fish that was recently posted as 59 x 29, which didn't show the total length of the fish, and clearly did not support the girth that was stated. It wasn't even close (imoho)... If stated 59 x 25, perhaps you could assess and say ok, possibly 25. But 29"??? 29 is freakish and the fish should look freakish. That one did not. Yours does. |
|
| |
|
| Great fish. I would have been laughing at that one. |
|
| |
|
| The MI state record was officially 27" x 56.125" and weighed 50.5 lbs. The standard weight formula girth x girth x length / 800 gives it a weight of 51.14 lbs. which is very close to the actual weight. As can be seen this formula is very accurate when dimensions are properly taken on dead fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | muskyyaker - 10/19/2009 7:51 PM Is the measured weight of the MI state record fish similiar to the weight the formula for muskie weight spits out based on length and girth? Just curious to see what the difference will be. That fish fits the formulas perfectly, her actual length is 55" w/ 27" girth not sure where the article Ranger mentioned got it's info but it's not a correct length (maybe measuerd hanging w/ a flexible tape). They used the same measurement in the record entry but the official measurement at the DNR research station was 55". For that fish the LxGxG = 50.12# if you use LxG/25-10 you get 49.4#
Edited by Will Schultz 10/20/2009 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | My gosh has this been a thread. My brain hurts now. Formulas, genetics. I was afraid someone was going to mention the law of relativity. You know, that law that your relatives will show up when you least expect them.
Got another question for you: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any sound?
Edited by Herb_b 10/20/2009 12:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| You must factor in elevation to be really accurate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
| I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
Attachments
----------------
larry2.jpg (46KB - 2637 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| All I know is I got a picture a week or so ago from a friend of mine who lives in Canada, of a 53.5"x30" fish he caught recently. After seeing that picture, and knowing he's not one to inflate measurements? Two things are pretty clear:
1. There's a lot of measurements and pictures out there floating around that just don't add up.
2. I don't care how good or bad the picture is, once you've seen what a (legitimate) 50 pound muskie looks like, the idea of a 70 pound world record muskie out there swimming around? Hmph. Let's just say that I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I'll be awfully surprised if it does! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | Jimbo - 10/20/2009 3:14 PM
I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
I feel like I have been sleeping... Who, what, where? Monster... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Skeptic,
You know who I am, and I know who you are. Every time you login under your user name, that data is stored in our database. No one else has ever logged in under that IP, so...anonymous you are not.
I know you are a strong proponent of CPR. I was looking for a clarification, which you provided, thanks.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| esoxaddict - 10/20/2009 2:20 PM
All I know is I got a picture a week or so ago from a friend of mine who lives in Canada, of a 53.5"x30" fish he caught recently. After seeing that picture, and knowing he's not one to inflate measurements? Two things are pretty clear:
1. There's a lot of measurements and pictures out there floating around that just don't add up.
2. I don't care how good or bad the picture is, once you've seen what a (legitimate) 50 pound muskie looks like, the idea of a 70 pound world record muskie out there swimming around? Hmph. Let's just say that I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I'll be awfully surprised if it does!
Esoxaddict- Are you now saying some people report inflated measurements? Why can't you just congratulate them on the catch and just be happy for them? Who cares what it measured? Right? Does that sound familiar? Its very similar to what you type when someone says a reported 60 incher is not 60 inches. Have you finally realized that some people either don't know how to meaure a fish are are just plain liars?
John |
|
| |
|
| Of course the MI state record fits the standard G x G x L / 800 formula perfectly. This formula was developed from dead fish. Now let's see how it works on the IGFA world record which also had it's measurements taken after death. 33.5" x 33.5" x 60.25" / 800 = 84.52 lbs. This is a whopping 17.02 lb. discrepancy from it's reported weight of 67.5 lbs. Any comments?
L x G/25-10 was developed to justify the phony dimensions of the Hayward records. It understates the actual weight on fat fish and overstates it on skinny ones. It works fairly well on fish with average girth to length ratios but not at either extreme. IGFA world record...60.25" x 33.5" / 25-10 = 70.73 lbs. NFWFHF world record...63.5" x 31.25" / 25-10 = 69.375 lbs. Notice this formula fits the Spray fish almost exactly.
The standard 800 formula that we know has been proven gives the Spray fish a weight of 77.51 lbs. which didn't sit too well with the Spray supporters so a formula was developed to fit the reported dimensions.
Notice the formula L x G/25-10 gives a skinny 20" x 50" muskie a weight of 30 lbs. which you all know is impossible where as the formula G x G x L / 800 gives it a realistic weight of 25 lbs. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have what I showed you above. I'm not sure how much evidence it will take to bring down the phony current world records but at some point common sense will have to prevail. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Jimbo - 10/20/2009 2:14 PM
I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
Who's left, mine or the guys holding the fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Marc wrote : also given the cylindrical physical make up and feature of the fish
a 55 inch fish would support IN WATER a girth slightly more than have its length which would equate to 27.5 inches in girth,yes there are the exceptions of 28 and possibly 29. end quote.
That statement is not true and has been debunked many times. The old michigan record taken from Thornapple lake was only 51 inches and had a 28 inch girth. I applied that in a formula using that fish and a 55 inch Musky could have a 30 inch girth. W e all know that even one inch of girth can produce a lot of pounds. I would think maximum girth could be as much as 5 inches over 1/2 of the length. Meaning a 60 inch Musky could attain a girth of 35 inches. Not likely but very possible.
Marc you know as well as I do that stomach contents are the wild card. They always have been and always will be. My personal belief is that 60 to 70 pounds empty is about as far as they can go. I think 70 is almost impossible without a belly full of bait. Available forage and lack of pressure along with hitting that 25 year old mark are all needed. Greasy forage like whitefish, tulibee, Lake trout and shad all can produce this monster. KF |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | guest - 10/20/2009 4:42 PM
Of course the MI state record fits the standard G x G x L / 800 formula perfectly. This formula was developed from dead fish. Now let's see how it works on the IGFA world record which also had it's measurements taken after death. 33.5" x 33.5" x 60.25" / 800 = 84.52 lbs. This is a whopping 17.02 lb. discrepancy from it's reported weight of 67.5 lbs. Any comments?
L x G/25-10 was developed to justify the phony dimensions of the Hayward records. It understates the actual weight on fat fish and overstates it on skinny ones. It works fairly well on fish with average girth to length ratios but not at either extreme. IGFA world record...60.25" x 33.5" / 25-10 = 70.73 lbs. NFWFHF world record...63.5" x 31.25" / 25-10 = 69.375 lbs. Notice this formula fits the Spray fish almost exactly.
The standard 800 formula that we know has been proven gives the Spray fish a weight of 77.51 lbs. which didn't sit too well with the Spray supporters so a formula was developed to fit the reported dimensions.
Notice the formula L x G/25-10 gives a skinny 20" x 50" muskie a weight of 30 lbs. which you all know is impossible where as the formula G x G x L / 800 gives it a realistic weight of 25 lbs. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have what I showed you above. I'm not sure how much evidence it will take to bring down the phony current world records but at some point common sense will have to prevail.
I think Marc thorpe answered that one. Bloating or air can cause exagerated girths. I dont think anyone believes that Sprays fish was 77 pounds. It is my understanding that the Spray fish was weighed dead. With a weight taken after death why use a formula?
I see three gallon milk jugs . one is empty, one is half full of water and one is full of water. All have the same girth. One is heavier is it not?
I have yet to see any proof that any of the formulas are acruate every time.
If you are concerned about how much your fish weighs then carry a good scale on your boat. Weigh your fish alive then decide if its big enough to kill.
What I find really interesting is the fact that every fish including Obriens have been called lies by so called self proclaimed experts. How many liars are there now 30? Isnt it just possible that one or two of those old timers were telling the truth?
I have seen the Cal Johnson fish at the Chicago show. This is a skin mount correct? is it possible that they doctored that mount to make it bigger then it really was? I have always been told that they shrink with age and split. Why is that record in dispute? Seriously I dont know. Did someone prove that the skin was stretched or added to? KF
Edited by Kingfisher 10/20/2009 4:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Wimuskyfisherman - 10/20/2009 3:21 PM
esoxaddict - 10/20/2009 2:20 PM
All I know is I got a picture a week or so ago from a friend of mine who lives in Canada, of a 53.5"x30" fish he caught recently. After seeing that picture, and knowing he's not one to inflate measurements? Two things are pretty clear:
1. There's a lot of measurements and pictures out there floating around that just don't add up.
2. I don't care how good or bad the picture is, once you've seen what a (legitimate) 50 pound muskie looks like, the idea of a 70 pound world record muskie out there swimming around? Hmph. Let's just say that I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I'll be awfully surprised if it does!
Esoxaddict- Are you now saying some people report inflated measurements? Why can't you just congratulate them on the catch and just be happy for them? Who cares what it measured? Right? Does that sound familiar? Its very similar to what you type when someone says a reported 60 incher is not 60 inches. Have you finally realized that some people either don't know how to meaure a fish are are just plain liars?
John
OF COURSE people report inflated measurements. I know it, you know it, EVERYONE knows it -- it's obvious by looking at some of the pictures that a lot of the 50's aren't 50, a lot of the 26" girths are closer to 22"...
But that doesn't mean that every single picture of every single fish ought to be torn apart by the armchair brigade, who's biggest fish happens to be 35". There are a lot of fish out there caught by honest guys who really report the ACTUAL measurements, and it never fails -- some friggin yo-yo will get on here posting as a guest and bash the #*#* out of it anyway. Some day I am going to catch a jumbo. I fish enough in the right places where I'll get close to, or even break that 50 pound mark some day. When I do, it will be after (at least) 7 years chasing these stupid green fish. I've put in thousands of hours, and dozens of thousands of dollars into this crazy sport. Broken equipment, sore backs, cramps, cuts, bruises, soaking wet, can't feel your fingers, breaking ice off my guides, 35MPG wind, snowing sideways, 98 dergees and flat calm, you name it...
And when that day comes that I catch that giant fish? I'm going to put up that picture with a brief story about the catch, and I guarantee someone with all of 3 days under his belt is going to chime in and say it was no bigger than 45"...
The blatent liars, who inflate the measurements of everything they catch to the point of being ridiculous? They deserve to be called out and humiliated. The guys out there who just caught a big fish and are proud enough of their accomplishment to want to tell everyone deserve to be left the hell alone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Kingfisher - 10/20/2009 4:32 PM
I see three gallon milk jugs . one is empty, one is half full of water and one is full of water. All have the same girth. One is heavier is it not?
Why would you fill milk jugs with water? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| Pointerpride102 - 10/20/2009 4:58 PM
Kingfisher - 10/20/2009 4:32 PM
I see three gallon milk jugs . one is empty, one is half full of water and one is full of water. All have the same girth. One is heavier is it not?
Why would you fill milk jugs with water?
If you leave them empty, they blow away or tip over before you have a chance to shoot them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | milk jugs with water? So is that what Spray stuffed down the throat of his fish? I always thought it was a sandbag? |
|
| |
|
| Isn't that why they had that big "study" on the chip for? They anted to find that elusive sand eating muskie for their genetics.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher,you are by all rights entitled to your beliefs
When the information I shared from my opinion is absorbed you will understand why 60 inchers cannot support a 35 inch girth
The species has its limitations
The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post
Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong
I dont intend to debate with anyone
I formed my opinion on the matter and shared why I came to these conclusion
Its educational information on the aspect and evolution of the species
For me it was educational,like all I though a 60 pounder or 70 pounder existed
I now have my doubts
No question some great big fish have been caught and released,kudos to all
We are living at the pinnacle of the species
So far since Williamson,no one has caught and weight a legitimate 60 pounder
Even less a 70 pounder
Could it exist,maybe
I have my doubts and so far history follows by beliefs
Question: Not sure about the leech lake populations growth,they do grow big
Generally,if growth is rapid.it correlates with average seasonal water temps
You have know the growth rate of fingerlings within their first 3-5 years
Find out at what age they reach sexual maturity and what length for the region(it can vary)
Find out the average age of a 48 and 50 plus inch fish
Possibly see how the growth rates change through out the course of the fishes growth life
Cleitrhums offer allot of information to understanding of an individual,this info may be available
Hopefully be able to asses the potential life expectancy it might give you somewhat of an idea,keep in mind ,there are no absolutes
Growth varies from one individual to another
The DNr may already have that information
The fish may grow fast at a younger age and generally from what I understand the growth diminishes at a varied rate
nice fatty posted
Has she got a rump
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | marc thorpe - 10/20/2009 7:47 PM The species has its limitations The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong If by first gen you mean the first stocking in that lake then no, the first stocking was back in the mid-60's. She was from a mid-80's plant and caught in 2000. For some reason all the big females in the fall of 2000 carried a lot of extra weight in that lake I haven't seen them that heavy before or after. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 596
Location: WI | Louie must have lifted a few sandbags in his days b/c he must have been one ripped SOB to support 69lbs like that. Seeing all these big fish caught lately and the struggle they seem to be having in the photos. Not Louie, things darn near over his head. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | marc thorpe - 10/20/2009 7:47 PM
Kingfisher,you are by all rights entitled to your beliefs
When the information I shared from my opinion is absorbed you will understand why 60 inchers cannot support a 35 inch girth
The species has its limitations
The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post
Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong
I dont intend to debate with anyone
I formed my opinion on the matter and shared why I came to these conclusion
Its educational information on the aspect and evolution of the species
For me it was educational,like all I though a 60 pounder or 70 pounder existed
I now have my doubts
No question some great big fish have been caught and released,kudos to all
We are living at the pinnacle of the species
So far since Williamson,no one has caught and weight a legitimate 60 pounder
Even less a 70 pounder
Could it exist,maybe
I have my doubts and so far history follows by beliefs
Question: Not sure about the leech lake populations growth,they do grow big
Generally,if growth is rapid.it correlates with average seasonal water temps
You have know the growth rate of fingerlings within their first 3-5 years
Find out at what age they reach sexual maturity and what length for the region(it can vary)
Find out the average age of a 48 and 50 plus inch fish
Possibly see how the growth rates change through out the course of the fishes growth life
Cleitrhums offer allot of information to understanding of an individual,this info may be available
Hopefully be able to asses the potential life expectancy it might give you somewhat of an idea,keep in mind ,there are no absolutes
Growth varies from one individual to another
The DNr may already have that information
The fish may grow fast at a younger age and generally from what I understand the growth diminishes at a varied rate
nice fatty posted
Has she got a rump
The Thornapple fish was a brute for her length. She was caught in a small river system lake. With all of the data to support that big water produces bigger fish then I must assume that she could have had a 30 inch girth if she were eating tulibee or whitefish. Your statement was that a 55 inch fish could not support a 30 inch girth (28 to 29 at the most) That statement is not correct. Its not my belief its a fact. I didnt even have to look outside my own state to find that one. Will S. knows the details on the Thornapple fish and its true we have not seen another like her since that fish. But she "was" caught and she "was" bigger then she should have been. And thats my point. If it can happen here in little Thornapple lake then it can happen in the Larry, the Ottawa, Georgian bay and and anywhere else that the forage exists to feed one like her.
And what about generational changes ? W e have seen declines in average sizes of Salmon planted in Lake Michigan. After reintroducing eggs from Washington they got big again. Could it be possible that the big fish of the past had better genetics then the ones of today? Does a stocked fish have a better chance of reaching super tanker size then a 40th or so generation natural reproducing fish? Did Spray, Lawton, Johnson and others have a better genetic strain in thier days? KF
Edited by Kingfisher 10/20/2009 10:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, they didn't. That much has been indicated by Dr. Sloss's genetics work on Lac Court Oreilles. |
|
| |
|
| marc thorpe - 10/20/2009 6:47 PM
When the information I shared from my opinion is absorbed you will understand why 60 inchers cannot support a 35 inch girth
The species has its limitations
The Thornapple fish if I am not mistaken is a first generation fish,its is somewhat common first generation fish have un-usual girth,I shared that in my post
Maybe Will S can correct me if I am wrong
Seems to be the case as with many of the 1st gen fish on Mille Lacs.
http://www.muskiebreath.com/media/articleimages/article1.jpg
I can only imagine what this fish looks like today, 5 years later. 51x29. |
|
| |
|
| Tks Will,seems from what you are saying the fish stocked in the 60's may have not taken off or hold adequately for what ever reason
You should have experienced quality in the 80's and 90's
Possibly the fish stocked in the 80's may have taken hold adequately thus possibly somewhat being the first generation to take hold which would explain that years classes good growth rate.
Kingfisher,dude I am not interested in arguing with you
Like I said you are entitled to your beliefs |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher mind showing us the facts that a 55 inch muskie with a 30 inch girth in water measurement exists? that would make it 32 or 33 inches out of water! |
|
| |
|
| Muskies are 1 species that evolved according to its geographical location
The only variable that exists within the muskie populations across North America is whether the population has co existed with pike or has not
There are no super genetics,there are no mutant freak muskies
The fish in GBay,Ottawa,St Lawrence ,Mile Lacs,Michigan are all the same.
Dr Crossman theory of one species still holds true today in expedition of the shoepac muskie
The only evolutionary variable within muskies is co existence with pike which seems to indicate and have a correlation with spawning tendencies,whether they spawn once or twice in the spring.Those that co exist with pike tend to or seem to get bigger,that may be a evolutionary survival and dominance factor within apex predators of different species. They also tend to spawn twice in 2 different locations,I would suspect this is a evolutionary survival adaptation.
|
|
| |
|
| JR,Jason fish is 51x29,I suspect out of water measurement
A great big fish
now if we factor in water measurement,it would mean 51 x 27,which fits directly withing my calculations of first generation great growth rate and length to girth ratio,that fish is at the pinnacle of its growth cycle in life.
Which would mean it will or may possibly get longer but probabilities are it may not support such a girth but a more ratio oriented girth in its continued length growth rate.
At some point in its aging the length and girth ration will decrease
A monster none the less |
|
| |
|
| Jimbo - 10/20/2009 2:14 PM
I don't understand all the fuss. Here is the undisputed world record.
If you weren't sure it's easily (by 20lbs) the one on the left.
LOL. Ken O'Brien's fish is the record. No doubt about it. Heck, with all of the pigs caught recently, Spray's fish looks middle of the pack in comparison. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | marc thorpe - 10/21/2009 5:22 AM Tks Will,seems from what you are saying the fish stocked in the 60's may have not taken off or hold adequately for what ever reason You should have experienced quality in the 80's and 90's Possibly the fish stocked in the 80's may have taken hold adequately thus possibly somewhat being the first generation to take hold which would explain that years classes good growth rate. The fishery is completely maintained by stocking and the density hasn't changed much over the years. The growth rates have been the same since the DNR started to keep track of age/length. The year 2000 was just something special and had to be weather/forage related and didn't have anything to do with growth rates for a particular year class. We put one in the boat a that was a mid-40# fish that fall too that was the heaviest fall fish I've seen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
Location: Storm Lake, IA | any body have the picture of the thornapple fish? |
|
| |
|
| Marc Thorpe answered that one? Hardly. When a fish dies the swim bladder collapses. Both the Spray fish and the Johnson fish should have fit the formula very closely. As I said the formula G x G x L / 800 was developed from dead fish with collapsed air bladders.
Are you trying to convince people that both the Spray and Johnson fish were rotting at the time the measurements were taken?
By the way, I believe Marc Thorpe is absolutely correct in his beliefs about the maximum growth potential of muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'll go with Casselman's spoken stance on the St Lawrence from the Muskie Symposium. If it's going to happen, that place could make is so.
Marc has it right for the most part, IMO. If there IS a 70# fish swimming out there, it's eluded capture and recording for a very very long time. If it's caught and recorded, that will end this speculation...which might be a little bit unfortunate. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Doonan - 10/21/2009 10:17 AM any body have the picture of the thornapple fish? 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Has there ever been a test done on Cal Johnsons skin mount?
Marc, now we see a 51 by 29 . I showed you a 51 by 28. 51 by 29 is a solid 3 inches over half of her length.
Marc, you said a 55 could not get bigger then 29 correct? How is it that a 51 (now two 51 inch fish could get girths of 28 and 29? Im not debating you on this (you made the statement) the proof is in your court. I have shown you 1 -51 incher that defies your statement and now we see a 51 by 29 that also defies your statement. In the water or out . If a 51 inch fish can get a 29 inch girth I have to believe that a 55 can get one more inch. If you apply the formula of the 51 by 29( 25.5 plus 3.5) to a 55 inch fish you get 27.5 plus 3.5 = 31 inches . I dont care if the measurement is in or out of the water.
Are you saying that a 55 inch fish can not be proportioned as obese as that 51 by 29? Im not buying it Marc. Certain lakes that are packed with greasy forage can produce freaks that defy anyones formulas. The only proof I see is that fish can grow girths at least 3.5 inches bigger then one half of their length. KF |
|
| |
|
| With all this discussion of girths and fish not being able to attain certain girths.....
Where does this fish fit into the equation? Anyone know more about this fish? From an old thread, supposedly 48x32... I wouldn't question it.... I also probably wouldn't have believed the measurements had I not seen a photo of it
Edited by Esox1850 10/21/2009 12:40 PM
Attachments
----------------
48x32.jpg (12KB - 244 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher,
Do you think anyone could get permission to do a test on Cal Johnson's skin mount? Do you feel the photo's of the actual fish show a girth anywhere near 33.5"? Do you feel the fish was decomposing therefore "bloated" at the time the girth was measured? It certainly doesn't appear bloated in any of the photo's. With a girth of 33.5" and a length of 60.25" this fish should appear very similar to a 55" fish with a 30.5" girth. Why doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
| KF,if that fish is 51 x 29
I suspect there is a discrepancy in the girth measurement or the picture is not relevant to the fishes actual size.
Generally that fish should have ribs rippling in her under belly,that one does not display that
Could it be possible that it was 51x27 in the water?
Then its plausible
Kf,generally the longer they get,the more they seem to lose at the back end
,which means they are not carrying all their weight all across,like the Michigan fish.
KF,like I said,my views are based on what has been caught and scientific information.
The swim bladder only collapse after a certain period or its pierced,not all fish have have excess air in their swim bladders,generally its a current thing or depth issue.
Some fish are just plain full
Will S,Possibly like you say forage maybe other factors also
Tks for the info
Steve W,Even Dr Casselman agrees the species has its limitation,really no one knows in exception of what has been captured.
The other pic with the crease, That one is funny looking
Something is not right with that pics ,might be the hold
Definitively an abnormally
Ginormous for sure
makes you wonder what the life expectancy of that one would be
I am not saying I am right,I answered as informatively as I could to the question in the thread tittle
There will always be unique fish that are caught,great big ones at that
Will we ever see a Williamson fish?
That has yet to be seen
Its been a good discussion,hopefully something has been learned
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If I remember correctly, the upper confidence limit on the St Lawrence by some consensus at the Muskie Symposium was the heaviest out there in the 'trophy waters' of North America. Just over 70#, I believe. If, when, maybe...part of the chase for sure. |
|
| |
|
| Marc Thorpe,
Cal Johnson's fish is said to be 60.25". If what you say is true why does this fish carry it's weight all the way across? It certainly is not lacking thickness at the back end. Either this fish is a hoax or your theory is blown right out of the water.
The swim bladder would also have been completely collapsed on this fish as it was measured dead by the taxidermist. The girth was claimed to be 33.5". This means the girth would have been GREATER than 33.5" if measured IN the water because there would have been some air in the swim bladder at that time as opposed to none after it was dead. Keep in mind this fish is carrying this immense girth the full length of the fish and yet it only weighs 67.5 lbs. The swim bladder certainly doesn't contribute to the tremendous thickness of the rear section of this fish.
I agree with you Marc, hopefully something has been learned from this discussion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 719
| Well the fins are in the wrong place on the Johnson fish as well.......what theory would that involve ??? |
|
| |
|
| That theory is the same as it was with the Spray record. The fins were removed during the mounting process and then re-attached in the wrong location. There seems to be an excuse for everything when it comes to these records even though most of the excuses defy common sense. |
|
| |
|
| I also find it hilarious that the "upper confidence limit" is just over 70 lbs. which is just enough to break the current world record. |
|
| |
|
| Guest,the swim bladder has nothing to do with all fish just certain fish that either live in current or caught from deep water.
Thats what I have observed,their are other instances when a fish can be shallow and have the same issue in non current water.
What reasons,I really dont know,evidently its using air for a reason
Fish from less than lets say 25 feet,generally don't display an inflated swim bladder
I think some are crossing over 2 different points in what I wrote
Not all fish display an inflated bladder
the heaviest fish seem to carry their weight from the neck all the way back
They all have various physical features which will make a well built fish as big as a long swarthy fish or a long bellied fish that is slender at the back end.
Guest,I suspect the Johnson fish has discrepancies in the measurements
The picture of the fish represents to me a healthy fish with proportional weight displacement and a great looking 45-48 pounder
Thats my view,I may not be right,I dont think its 67 pounds
My point is not to shred any of the captures,discrepancies do exist for various reasons
But the fish is well built throughout its entire length,a healthy specimen
Guest learning about the species is much more fascinating
Remember they catch you
You don't catch them |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest,
Why is that 'hilarious'? The upper confidence limit on the St Lawrence is what it is, and wasn't estimated by the fisheries folks up there (some pretty smart folks, too) because of or in response to anything other than what Muskies might be able to achieve for Max Weight. That stat has nothing whatsoever to do with the current WR. I believe Georgian Bay was in the 60's, Waboigoon in the 50's, and so on.
I also might point out that most of the discussion on the current WR at the symposium was to encourage leaving it alone; social issues more than anything from what I could gather.
If you are trying to convince a majority of the folks here the current WR is a little shaky at best, and the rest of the WI fish in the 60 to 70 pound range are as well, you don't need to do a heck of alot of convincing. Execute a search on the research forum and site wide, there have been multiple conversations on the WR over the years here. |
|
| |
|
| Gee Steve I wonder how those size projections were determined? Evidentally you forgot about the former WR held by Art Lawton from the St. Lawrence that was only TWO OUNCES SHORT of the "just over 70 lbs." "upper confidence limit"!
Then we have Georgian Bay where the 65 lb. O'Brien fish came from that has an "upper confidence limit" in the 60's.
Wabigoon's largest fish was reportedly in the 50's and this is where the upper confidence limit is set there. Don't even try to convince me that the size of the phony WR has nothing to do with the upper confidence limit on the St. Lawrence.
The upper confidence limit on the St. Lawrence was set to give anglers hope that the current world record may someday be broken which common sense should tell you will never happen.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | guest - 10/23/2009 11:55 AM
Gee Steve I wonder how those size projections were determined? Evidentally you forgot about the former WR held by Art Lawton from the St. Lawrence that was only TWO OUNCES SHORT of the "just over 70 lbs." "upper confidence limit"!
You mean the one they filled with wet sand and later admitted they had done so? Boy, yeah...good example....  |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Marc for your honest opinion of the Cal Johnson record. Keep one thing in mind, you can't learn much about the size limit of a species if the maximum size of that species is falsly represented. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't 'forget' about anything. You need to do what Marc and others who are interested in the science behind determinations as to what a body of water can kick out have done and actually talk to the scientists...at length...to determine why and how upper confidence limits are determined. How big was the Lawton fish...really?
Fisheries mangers and scientists do not 'create' hope by 'making up' current important management data from a single individual fish reported decades ago. From their point of view, water chemistry, predator/prey relationships, the average maximum age a muskie can attain, creel, netting, and many other factors go into determining how big they estimate a fish in that system can get. Green Bay, for example, has an estimated upper confidence limit SMALLLER than some of the reported fish. When the current study is completed, I'd bet that will be revisited.
'Never' is a long time. I don't feel a new world record over 70# is likely, but that's me. |
|
| |
|
| JRedig,
For your information, nobody admitted that Art Lawton's record was filled with wet sand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest, you are coming off as either overly aggressive, or just plain rude; which I doubt is your intent. I don't think the majority of the folks here disagree with you on the current WR, and your protestations won't convince the rest if the WRMA couldn't. Ease up a little, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I have learned many things in my life:
1. Never say never.
2. There is little that is not possible.
3. Two of the certain things in life are taxes and death. Few other things are.
4. Science is always changing.
5. Weather is no more predictable than when the fish will bite.
Being an engineer and a scientist, all this talk about science seems very strange to me. Science rarely stays the same for long. That is because science is nothing more than determinations/opinions based on the best available information at the time. For instance, many species of fish that were thought to be extinct have now been discovered to be thriving. The science about many species of fish has changed greatly over the years and will continue to change. The science that now indicates the maximum growth of Muskies and other species will almost certainly change in time. It may increase or decrease depending on the new data.
One of most applicable scientific theories may be the Chaos Theory. The Chaos theory basically indicates that, due to small initial influences, things completely out of the normal sphere of expectations can happen. Mathematically, few things can be completely deterministic and virtually all things have some sort of chaotic influences. Applying this to any species of animal or fish would mean that we cannot always determine the end result because we do not know all the initial influences or the results of those influences. For instance, what might be the influence of new invasive species to the maximum size of Muskies in a given body of water? What affect might changing water levels or water clarity have? What influence might certain forms of pollution have over time? What influence might increased or decreased solar radiation have over time? So many things that we do not and cannot possibly know.
All that said, there appears to be no reason to rule out a new World record Muskie at some point in the future. But then there is also little reason to expect that to happen by any specific time either. It is all a big maybe and all we can do is speculate. It is possible that someday a 75 lb Muskie may be caught somewhere. It is also possible that someday the Chicago Cubs may win the world series or the Vikings may win two Super Bowls in a row. The WR Muskie may be more likely though.
Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| The Chicago Cubs or the Vikings accomplishing what you said is much more likely in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Herb_b,
The fisheries folks at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea a new record could be caught and in fact added data to allow speculation WHERE that fish should come from when one IS caught, using current data and what is known about growth rates, longevity, etc. on the trophy Waters of North America. It seems us armchair biologists are the ones making a case for a 70# plus fish being impossible. I take the stance it's entirely possible because the finest minds in the world of muskie management believe it is.
Wimuskyfisherman, none of the WRMA folks behaved on MuskieFIRST like our guest currently is, go to the research forum and read up.
I believe it just isn't likely to happen soon based only upon the fact I believe it never has, although Dales fish might have been close..... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | John:
The WRMA "A little too pushy"? Please show me one instance of this because to my knowledge the WRMA has been very quiet on the Internet for the last two years. I have personally answered a couple of questions on Muskie 1st lately... even added a relevant post to this thread.
We cannot control the actions of people on the Internet anymore than you and it's certainly unfair for you to lump the WRMA in with these anonymous posters. As a matter of fact, I would greatly appreciate it if they would simply stop as well.
|
|
| |
|
| Of course the fisheries people at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea of a new worlds record. How could they? They want people to believe the current records can be broken instead of supporting their disqualification like they should.
What is this nonsense about "when" one is caught. "IF" one is caught would make a lot more sense.
These fisheries people have NOTHING to support their claim that a 70+ lb. muskie is possible out of the St. Lawrence River or anywhere else. I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| guest - 10/23/2009 4:17 PM
Of course the fisheries people at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea of a new worlds record. How could they? They want people to believe the current records can be broken instead of supporting their disqualification like they should.
What is this nonsense about "when" one is caught. "IF" one is caught would make a lot more sense.
These fisheries people have NOTHING to support their claim that a 70+ lb. muskie is possible out of the St. Lawrence River or anywhere else. I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!
What?? What possible vested interest would a bunch of fisheries biologists have in making people believe that a 70# muskie is possible? So everyone would yell and scream at them (when there isn't one caught) for not doing their jobs well?
There is NOTHING to support the claim that a 70 pound muskie is possible? Have you read any of Cassleman's work?
And this:
"I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!"
That runs contrary to what most anglers who fish those areas would tell you, and I'd bet quite a few folks actually laughed out loud upon reading that statement. Do you have anything to support your claim?
Edited by esoxaddict 10/23/2009 5:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You seem to not understand what I was attempting to convey, fisheries professionals don't 'support' anything the Hayward Hall of Fame might do, nor do they NOT support what is done there. I was speaking to the general tone at the Symposium, perhaps because of the 'lore' involved. Don't read any conspiracy theory crap into that comment.
Speechless.
'These fisheries people'??
Wow.
Never heard Dr. Casselman referred to in that manner. Ever hear of due respect?
And no, the Chip should NOT have a higher expectation than the St. Lawrence. Nor should LCO. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | guest - 10/23/2009 4:17 PM
It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!
Why?
And to the other guest: re wet sand, meh so I mixed the old lies (i think some would put "records" in here) up. Oh well, it's still all bull#*#* any way you slice it.
Edited by JRedig 10/23/2009 4:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks for the clarification, Jerry, good to hear from you.
Jredig,
You said what I was trying to say with one word. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | esoxaddict - 10/23/2009 5:24 PM
guest - 10/23/2009 4:17 PM
Of course the fisheries people at the recent symposium didn't reject the idea of a new worlds record. How could they? They want people to believe the current records can be broken instead of supporting their disqualification like they should.
What is this nonsense about "when" one is caught. "IF" one is caught would make a lot more sense.
These fisheries people have NOTHING to support their claim that a 70+ lb. muskie is possible out of the St. Lawrence River or anywhere else. I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!
What?? What possible vested interest would a bunch of fisheries biologists have in making people believe that a 70# muskie is possible? So everyone would yell and scream at them (when there isn't one caught ) for not doing their jobs well?
There is NOTHING to support the claim that a 70 pound muskie is possible? Have you read any of Cassleman's work?
And this:
"I wonder what the "upper confidence limit" is in the Chippewa Flowage or Lac Court Oreilles? It should definately be higher than the St. Lawrence River!"
That runs contrary to what most anglers who fish those areas would tell you, and I'd bet quite a few folks actually laughed out loud upon reading that statement. Do you have anything to support your claim?
;- )
I agree there is nothng to prove that a 70 pound Musky is possible. I also agree that there is nothing to prove one is not possible. This has been my point all along. There is not one shred of real evidence that points to a limit on how long or how heavy a Musky can get. Today self proclaimed experts claim that every sinlge one of the old records are lies. That means that everyone who claimed world record fish were liars. To call them all liars is pretty strong stuff.
I dont hold up any one fish, not Sprays, not Johnsons, Lawtons or any other. I believe that a true 70 is out there and will be caught. Of all the big fish of that last 20 years I believe that Obriens 65 pounder is legitimate. So to me 5 more pounds is a pike in the belly of Obriens fish. I think McNairs fish was over 60 pounds as well. I for one am Glad that the record is not 60 pounds. If it was there would be a bunch of 61,62 63 and bigger fish killed to beat it. A world record should not be in reach of hundreds of men but a once in a lifetime fish of true gigantic proportions. I dont care what any so called experts have to say any more. To me the goal is 70 pounds. I like it there. Teetering on the brink of the impossible where it should be. Good luck all. Im off to try again to catch one over 50 pounds. KF |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Reading back through this thread, it's really an interesting discussion, one of the better threads, thanks to marc and others for sharing some great and insightful information/opinion. I think and underlying theme that is not well stated is that these upper limits are a size that would be considered to be reached on a more common basis than just maybe a genetic freak that's a monster, which would be the true needle in a haystack. Maybe that's not how they're intended, but that's my take on them. The odds that there are quite a few fish out there between 60 and 70 pounds are probably pretty good, but as covered repeatedly over the years, they will be very difficult to find and they are fish that probably don't frequent "structure" that is targeted. Just looking at the miles and miles of extremely huge water with great depth and forage out east, it's hard to think it wouldn't exist. Too bad some tissue or something wasn't kept from the McNair fish to try and age it or something...gotta be a way to tell...c'mon science! To many of the guests, just think for a second about what an "upper confidence limit" means. It's not an end all stating, "i'm an expert and this is it", it's a frame of reference based on a lot of experience stating that based on XYZ information, here's what i'm confident in stating. As herb_b mentioned, science is only relevant to the information currently available. It can and certainly does change. KF, you can put me in the camp of doubting all the old records in muskie fishing, but i don't doubt the size of the fish in terms of length in most cases, only weight/girth and location caught. Although the fin placement is puzzling. You'd think that some genetic sampling would be able to be done to prove where those fish came from....
Edited by JRedig 10/24/2009 10:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I just find find it very hard to believe that every single one of those men were lying. Even Obriens dead (weighed) fish is challenged. I never knew any of thes men. Never met one there fore I have no opinion of them. Larry Ramsels book has over 30 Fish that could have been the world record. According to todays self proclaimed experts they are all liars. When a true 70 pounder is caught it will be challenged and thrown out by the same group who want to throw out every fish but the Williamson fish. Its my hope that a true 70 pounder is caught. I have seen formula after formula fail to prove anything. I doubt there are very many fish over 70 pounds out there. Maybe a couple in each area and most likely in a spot that does not get pounded. Again good luck to all who seek her. KF |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Esox1850 - 10/21/2009 1:38 PM
With all this discussion of girths and fish not being able to attain certain girths.....
Where does this fish fit into the equation? Anyone know more about this fish? From an old thread, supposedly 48x32... I wouldn't question it.... I also probably wouldn't have believed the measurements had I not seen a photo of it
Here is yet another slob that defies every formula. This pig proves that anything can happen in fat retention ha ha ha ha ha ha . Kf |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| Rant rant rant! Rage Rage Rage!
The musky police on the job. Can't see beyond the end of this season. |
|
| |
|
| The Growth chart that that Dr Casselman used for ultimate growth is theoretical.
It does not mean its plausible and it does not mean it cant be attained,its un-known
I doubt we will see very many if any over 60 pounds
There will always be anomalies and fish that display fast growth or various physical appearances,you cannot expect such an individual to attained full life expectancy
KF,yes all those guys may have hand at instilling discrepancies in their capture,yes it is possible.If you watched the Hartman videos,they were all in that mid set.
Hartman caught some great big fish which equaled all historical captures,he just would not push his discrepancies past 67 pounds.
The man left a legacy of great big fish and methods of capturing them,beyond the discrepancies I believe Hartman and all historical anglers left future generations a legacy and laid the foundations to myths and lore that exist until today in which we are all fascinated with.
They heighten the fascination towards the species.
They were all competing amongst each other,for the same tittle and monies
Was tough times and most were rewarded financially
Nowadays, they get nothing,there still are discrepancies in the methods and accuracy of measurements
KF,the 48x supposed 32 may be a rapidly growing and aging fish which would result in shorter life expectancy.
You are aloud by all rights to your belief,when you understand the biological growth rates and life expectancy,your beliefs may change
If you are really interested in the break down and my views on all old and recent captures,I suggest starting another thread.
I would be ore than happy to list discrepancies in fish captured which you may think are 60 pounders.
They are all great big fish,some in the mid 50's ,possibly 57 no more
This has good perspective information,dissecting fish captured should not be on this thread
I do believe we can discuss previous captures without degrading those fish
JRedig,I agree,I enjoy such discussions because it mixes biology and science for us laymen
What I am sharing,I have shared with Biologists and Dr Casselman
I look forward to furthering our discussion this winter
HerB, nailed it on the head,science is a continuously evolving learning process which ideas and ideals continuously change through the gathering of data.
Steve W even mentioned that what is thought or believed today can change tomorrow
It just takes someone to get it going
|
|
| |
|
| I have read a st Lawrence report on Update of the Strategic Plan for
Management of the St. Lawrence River Muskellunge Population and Sportfishery
One thing that stood out which I overlooked was,some individuals can attain 50 inches at 15 years old, which may alter the pinacle years in the life period of the individual(I suspect between 18 and 24).It may even alter maximum life expectency.
Keep in mind these fish were sampled through cleitha bones and those netted
I did notice data that was not accurate due to the missing a data
Mentioned the oldest fish sampled in the Ottawa was 21 years old,I do know of a 24 year old 54 incher that was not included and many other fish.
When we read these studies,we must keep in mind that Biologist and Scientist form theoretical gatherings from the data and information collected.
The data and information that is un-known to them can and will alter these findings.
We only have ourselves to blame for the discrepancy and inaccuracies that exist
One must stare the ennemy in the eye to admit full responsibility
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Sometimes the obstinance of the Hayward Hall is laughable....there is no way the Spray or Johnson fish are over 52-53" or 50 lbs, nice fish but nowhere close to 'stated' wieghts(without sand anyway haha!). As far as 70 lbs...nothing surprises me anymore, I hope it happens sooner rather than later so we dont have to look at flannel and vertical holds employing photographic "perspective" trickery. Wisconsin cant grow 60 lbers! :P |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I bet Wisconsin CAN grow 60 pound fish...Green Bay should eventually hit that mark. IMO. |
|
| |
|
| Yeah Steve I overlooked that body of water, you may be right. I had the Spray and Johnson waters in mind with that statement. No matter where it comes from, I just hope it happens soon. |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worral,
Dr. Casselman DOES support leaving the old records alone so don't say this was just the "general tone" at the symposium. Anyone that would support something that was shown to be falsified by the most modern technology available today should be looked upon in a negative manner. How can the "lore" be more important than the truth? And you say he should be respected? The technology used on the Spray fish is considered a SCIENCE Mr. Worral so don't push that scientific crap that Mr. Casselman is using as any more relevant.
Ever wonder why Dr. Casselman didn't set the "upper confidence limit" on the St. Lawrence at just UNDER the current world record?
A lot of people were hurt when the Lawton record was brought down but this didn't matter at all to either of the record keeping bodies or the general public so why is there now so much concern for how people will feel if the hayward fish are brought down? When the Lawton fish was brought down the majority of the people actually cheered for what a good job the record keepers had done. Dr. Casselman should be ashamed of his position on the remaining two world records.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Green Bay .... yes but heavy musky fishing pressure! Big muskies might swim to Big Bay De Noc. I heard some large pike and walleye there.
Several less know mouth of river and humps in Georgian Bay. Of course we migjt surpise that someone caught a world record muksy somewhere unexpectly!
I would fish somewhere in Grand Traverse Bay, outside of Elk Lake. If I live in upper Michigan and have time then I would search in Whitefish Bay at far east end of the Lake Superior, around St. Ignace area between Lake Michigam and Lake Huron. Trolling around underwater hump and several miles off shore find school of ciscoes and whitefish. Maybe very few muskies out there but 50 lbs plus is possible! Love to read about monster muskies! Great posts! For big musky fans to check out good books is Larry Ramsell's two volumes books. Great and fun to read!
By the way is which is true world record musky for now?
Louis Spray?
Cal Johnson?
Ken O'Bren?
Thanks and happy monster musky hunting and lets fish until ice up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
At least get my name spelled right. What qualifications do you have to question ANY of the work Casselman has done? I talked to Dr. Casselman about his position while we were at the symposium, have you talked to him directly? As a sniper you are bashing the man and his reputation, which is not acceptable here. You could offer true debate on the subject instead of just bashing one of the finest minds in muskie management.
And please don't lecture me about the current WR. I acted to get it changed, doing what little I could to help the WRMA. I reviewed the material before it was published, s I am very familiar with the methodology. In fact, we published most of the WRMA material here. What's with you and the insistence I support the current world record?
I got right up in the Hayward Hall of Fame's face a couple times over the last few years, especially with the man who took the point on the quest from that group to get all the Muskie records disqualified but those from Wisconsin. Remember the CFMS? I submit that was little more than an attempt to accomplish much the same thing, using a different vehicle. I took ALOT of heat for both actions. In fact, I still am from some quarters. What have you done to try to bring about change?
That doesn't diminish a #*^@ed Dr. Casselman has done for the Muskie management world...the two don't necessarily merge. His opinion about Muskie 'Lore' is his own, and I respect that. Any reasonable person would.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| I suspect Cassleman wamts to leave the recodrs lie because it's a can of worms he'd rather not open, and with no legitimate way to prove or disprove any of them, why would anyone in his position want to spend time and energy, and risk his own reputation to beat a dead horse. Because let's face it - that horse died a LONG time ago.
I say let the muskie management folks manage muskies and leave what may or may not have happened with a few fish that may or may not have been records from decades ago where they belong, and that's in old record books.
We are our own worst enemy when it comes to this #*#*. Anybody who catches a true giant now is bound to clobber the #*^@ thing just to settle the debate. That will help us learn how big they can really get... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | yup, football is more interesting ... |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worrall,
Sorry about the spelling error. I'll be more careful next time. A person doesn't need any qualifications to question someone about something that isn't supported by any evidence. When there isn't any evidence, there is nothing to debate.
Further, if you spoke to Mr. Casselman about his position regarding the two remaining world records you would have found out that I was indeed correct. As I said the truth should be favored over the lore and I cannot respect Mr. Casselman's position and neither should you.
The can of worms has already been opened by the two record keeping bodies. Art Lawton was part of the "lore" and that didn't mean much of anything to anybody. Because of this I feel Mr. Casselman's position regarding the two remaining world records should not be respected by anyone.
I applaud your efforts in trying to get the record changed. I was not aware of your participation in this matter and for that I apologize. The information I have put forth in my posts was meant to lend support to your effort. If you respect Mr. Casselman's position on the two remaining world records, fine. But don't accuse me of being unreasonable if I don't.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | His position on the WR debate is one thing, and from my experience you are NOT 'indeed correct'. You read far too much into his and other biologist's feelings on the matter, and that's putting it nicely.
His reputation, record, and stellar performance as one of the leading minds in Muskie management is quite another. If you wish to acquire a shred of credibility, you need to separate the two, and refrain as an 'armchair amateur' from denigrating work widely recognized by fisheries management professionals across North America as top tier all the way.
Read the many papers out there on how biologists reach a conclusion on an upper confidence limit for any fish in any body of water. Better yet, learn more about that the terminology means.
At LEAST Read pages 12 through 21 of this one so you better understand how the science is done and conclusions reached:
http://www.esf.edu/tibs/Documents/SLR%20Muskellunge%20Management%20...
Another work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qPVXKBSyKgC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq... |
|
| |
