|
|
Posts: 8
| If one of you guys are lucky enough to catch the state record would you harvest it for the official record or would you be happy with the measurements and why? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I'd probably let it go...
why? I'm sure everyone has their reasons.
S. |
|
| |
|
| I'd kill it in a blink of an eye..........  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | Probably Thump it... Hard to say for sure & I hope to have that decision to make.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13
| Having already let go a state record, would have no problem letting another go. Only to return for a possible world record at a later date. To let it go too.
It is not about records, only memories.
My opinion amongst friends, and any fish, or for fishing sake, just wanting more memories.
Thanks for listening.
Lakes |
|
| |
|
| I'd take great pics on a bump board with a tape measure(for girth) and release her! Then I would go barking to every media outlet and MN DNR official who would listen about release records! We have the technology to do it I.G.F.A.-style! Plus think of the endless forum-fodder! I hold nothing against the lucky guy who will inevitably break it soon! |
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | It would be the "THUMP" heard round the world!! I'm a selfish bast@$% like that! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | MuskieMike - 10/29/2009 5:54 PM
It would be the "THUMP" heard round the world!! I'm a selfish bast@$% like that!
What he said but twice.....I've been bitten by once thumped fish.
Tim
|
|
| |
|
| The reason the record would be broken is due to all the catch and release. There is not a muskie fisherman on here that dosen't think that the big fish being caught hasen't felt steel before. My total muskie count isn't but maybe 50 fish and I just started fishing them hard this year. I would just want 3 good pictures and a measurement I'll take the replica. What all you fisherman think of the guy that catches it dosen't matter only to that person. I don't sleep with all of you so your opinion won't really affect me and the one who does won't read this. Point pratice what you preach no exceptions |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
| I agree with DMORGAN!
If it wasn't for catch release and my ego isn't that big that my name has to be in the record book. Lot's of photos, measurements, etc and the joy of watching her swim off.
Bravo DMORGAN |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's interesting all the insistence that one's 'ego' isn't this or that, but it's certainly strong enough to insist on one stance or another on a potential record CPR. One without a strong ego wouldn't comment or tell anyone the fish was caught or released, I'd say.
Nothing wrong with a strong ego, IMO, either way. All the insistence the release ethic also doesn't stroke the ego.... it most certainly does, and nicely.
Guess I'd let her go. Ego driven, all the way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | State record would swim away - World Record would go home with me. Of course I say that now, pressed with the decision, either school of thought may change. Who knows. I always said I would let it go. Who knows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Any State would be released with the exception of Wisconsin, then it would be the thump heard around the world.
Watch out Louie the fat lady is warming up, it seems that more and more really big fish are showing up, It won't be long and the crown will be passed it's just a matter of who & where
|
|
| |
|
| Funny, This is what I was told by the person that got Art Lawton's record disqualified about the chances of breaking the current world record: "It will never happen again." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
| Not a doubt in my mind if I caught what was a CERTAIN state, and in my case that would mean it was a World Record fish It would be getting a varnish bath :):):) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 27
| To me keeping the state record really wouldn't mean that much to me knowing that it HAS been caught and released multiple times in the last few years. I agree whole heartedly with release records, we preach and preach about CPR but the only way to hold a record is to kill a fish? Doesn't make sense to me. A 55lb fish would certainly be something to behold, but knowing that it isn't truly the record would take away a lot of the glory. |
|
| |
|
| There's no way anybody will ever know if a state or world record has been caught and released so what's the problem? If a fish is caught and killed that breaks a state or world record the glory the angler receives is well justified.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Jsondag - 10/29/2009 8:24 PM
State record would swim away - World Record would go home with me.
Probably my opinion also.. |
|
| |
|
| At one time I was a fanatic about muskie. Was the only fish I fished for. Over the years the drive settled a little. I go after whatever swim as long as its a muskie, pike, walleye, bass or trout. Probably fish for skie about five or six times a year depending the circumstances.
The one thing that really turned me off about the muskie fishing community(not muskie fishing)was the attitude given to someone that kept a monster fish. Most get more upset over a fish being killed then they would if it was a human killed. Thats completely rediculous. The fact of the matter is as long as its still legal to keep a fish there is no use complaining about someone elses actions. If a fellow MUSKIE fisherman wants to keep that ONE monster thats his choice. If you want to release yours fine.
By reading some of these posts it almost seems like its more of an ego thing to SAY you would release rather than keep. The guy that keeps that one fish he probably fished his whole life for knows he's gonna get torn apart on the forums(Tom Gelb ring any bells). Seems little to be gained by that. These days keeping that big fish is not about ego, its the complete opposite. I say who cares what everyone else thinks. Don't let others egos influence your decisions. I know I won't. No one should feel guilty about keeping a state record.
A world record?? We don't have to worry about that. It'll never be broken.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | never say never, I hear the 70 year old Bass world Record has just been broken . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Can't honestly answer that question untill the day happens. Would love to say I'll let it swim but on the other hand it would be hard to pass up what comes along with catching a record. I don't care what others think, when and if that day comes I'll decide then. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| I could not even begin to tell you what the records would be in Mich, Ohio, IN, or IL and don't really care. I have had my share of monsters in the boat but they all go back. Hell I might have put one back in the lake already and didn't know, or care.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | Guest - 11/1/2009 8:21 AM
The one thing that really turned me off about the muskie fishing community(not muskie fishing)was the attitude given to someone that kept a monster fish. Most get more upset over a fish being killed then they would if it was a human killed.
The funny thing about that is a lot of the guys that say they'd "let it swim" have never caught a fish that's any where to close being any kind of record and I don't think they can really say honestly what they would do having never been in a situation like it. I think a lot of guys would be surprised at how their feelings change when it's all laid out in front of them. I've been guiding for 25yrs and you wouldn't believe how many "100% CRP" guys that swore they'd never keep a fish get "the bat" out.
Good Fishin'
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | shaley - 11/1/2009 11:50 AM
Can't honestly answer that question untill the day happens. Would love to say I'll let it swim but on the other hand it would be hard to pass up what comes along with catching a record. I don't care what others think, when and if that day comes I'll decide then.
There's a man that's honest with himself....!!!
Tim
Edited by Roughneck1860 11/1/2009 1:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
| http://www.michapter54.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t...
Don't know how close I was but never even thought about a bat. 100% CPR all the way. This was a july fish and IMHO right now she's a state record and was only given that opportunity by letting her GROW and that doesn't happen on the wall!
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
| remember in the movie Platoon, as night approaches and the GI's know the NVA are going to hit them hard after dark. Sgt O'Neill (Red) goes to Barnes almost trembling with dread saying basically, 'hey skipper, I got a really BAD feeling about this one, how about putting me on that chopper out of here'. Barnes nonchalantly says 'everybody got to die sometime'.
Eventually the sun will go supernova, the lakes and rivers will boil away, and Gamma rays will kill all life on earth.
Given these facts, I will probably thump it. However, it would be gut check time, and maybe she would swim away.
Me thinks a huge old fish rotting on the bottom of the lake (perhaps from delayed mortality C&R) doesn't do much but feed the turtles and worms.
In general, people get sick of being lectured to and judged, especially when they are doing something legal that does not hurt anyone else. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | I will never be in a position to catch a world record, or even a state record. I can tell you that I hope someone does catch a world record, keeps it, and provides accurate documentaiton so that they put to rest all the debate regarding the current world record. As for my home state of Illinois, I can't wait until a new record is validated. Record fish provide us with data points that indicate how big a fish can actually get and provides validation regarding what waters can actually support these large fish. World and region (State) records provide incentive for people to fish these waters and contribute to the local economies. Louise Spray's record has been contributing to the local economy for years. These records also are a significant reason people pick up a rod and reel and go muskie fishing. The growth potential of these fish and the interest / excitement they generate is amazing. The argument regarding "loss of genetics" when a fish is harvested is a poor one at best. A record fish is going to be old and wouldhave contributed genetically to the body of water for mutiple years. I think the challenge is for anglers to exercise good judgement in their ability to recognize a potential record fish and to harvest these fish only if the law allows. |
|
| |
|
| Stste records were released on Mille lacs & Vermilion and this brings allot of out of stste anglers to MN. Why do you think this site has so many Vermilion outings, they surely don't go to number lakes. I think thumping them would have adverse affects on tourism but thats my oppinion. Why don't more people carry certified scales with them then just get witnesses and GOOD photos then let her go.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The reason we have Vermilion outings is because we have a sponsor who owns a really nice resort there and treats us like royalty, and the fishing is good. We have had many outings on Wabigoon, Cave Run, Presque Isle waters, Milwaukee area and Rhinelander area waters, too; some of the lakes we fish on MuskieFIRST outings are certainly known as 'numbers' lakes. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry I didn't get a chance to follow all of your guys outings but do notice most are on trophy potential waters and it seems like their well run. Also I notice Tenn. has raised the size limits on 2 of their waters recently to 50" es . Big fish = Big tourist dollars so thumping the state records might not be in the best interest of a local economy. Even the newly cought MI state record was attempted to be released. One last question, how many state record holders can you name? Me, 2 so in the grand scheme of things do you really think it matters? World record I could see why someone would keep it, but I don't think I would and I also don't think I will ever have to worry about that, but maybe just maybe.....
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | The decision whether to keep or release a potential state record is strictly a personal one for me. Whether or not I would become a "Muskie celebrity" would not be part of the equation. I think state records are like a personal best, nobody else is going to care much except you anyway.
I think AFCChief made a poignant observation; " Record fish provide us with data points that indicate how big a fish can actually get and provides validation regarding what waters can actually support these large fish". This was one of the basic premises behind the establishment of the WRMA. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the Spray record(s) have adversely affected stocking, length limits and general perception.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | No doubt it would be thump!!!!!!!!!
Now let me tell you why. I've fished them for over 40 years and never caught a state record. I've let one hell of a lot a fish go in my lifetime. If I got the state record or world record I would want to be able to admire all my years worth of fishing from my recliner when I am unable to fish anymore.
Secondly if you keep it they can't doubt you and after all of that I have seen I would have no guilt about keeping it.
Third I feel if you no how to market it and yourself there is certainly some money to be made off of it.
Ans last I would not judge anyones choice if they keep it or let it go so I expect the same.
I was surprised to see the comments and surprised by some but thought all were good. May you have to make that choice soon.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3907
| "May you have to make that choice soon."
Excellent post. |
|
| |
|
| In my case if i were to catch a state record, as far as im concerned itd be a world record too considering both art lawton and dale mcnair's enormous fish, which i consider both to be #1 and #2. but honestly i dont know what id do till i got in tht situation. Adrenaline and other factors can do funny things to a guy. I dont think i would have the same reasoning right now if i had a state record fish in my hands, id like to say id let her swim |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I got to thinking about the Wisconsin state record a little more after Don's post and agree a Wisconsin state record would certainly have some sort of monetary value. Hypothetically speaking... what would someone do with a dead 68 pound muskie out of Green Bay then?
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/3/2009 12:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Jerry Newman - 11/3/2009 12:20 PM
... what would someone do with a dead 68 pound muskie out of Green Bay then?
Jesus fed 20,000....I imagine it'd go something like that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 359
Location: Wauwatosa, Wisconsin | I'd have to let her go...the wife would never let me spend the big bux to get her mounted (the fish, not the wife; that's another whole discussion for a different site). |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Good one Pointer... and true because that's about all it would be worth monetarily speaking eh'! A hypothetical 70 pounder on the other hand would be worth $100,000 (just for starters) with the bounty from the Moccasin Bar. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I've caught big fish and they all went back. No reason to kill one. There is always the chance that a fish could die and it is always possible one could catch a state record Muskie and then not be able to revive her. But, other than that, I'd let her go for sure. No "ifs", "ands" or "maybes". Wouldn't even think about it.
A state record wouldn't mean a thing to me. I have caught fish that were almost certain state records of several other species of fish and always turned them loose. (Except for a carp that was fed to the pigs on the farm.)
A certain WR Muskie though? That I am not sure about. In order to kill a fish it would have to be a certain world record and not just a "maybe". But then one would have to deal with other issues such as:
- One would have to deal with all the nay-sayers even if the fish was proven to be the WR by the DNR. There would always be people saying the fish couldn't be that big or the fisherman is not that good or something negative.
- One would most likely be asked to speak at various shows and meetings. (As if one is a better fisherman than anyone else.)
- One would have to pay for the mount and that would be very expensive.
None of that sounds like fun to me. So, I'd probably just let her go and avoid all the hassle. Just take some pictures and maybe tell a few people that I could trust not to spread it around.
My two cents.
Edited by Herb_b 11/4/2009 11:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I guarantee you wouldn't have to pay for the mount. Who cares what negatives might be tossed around by the anonymous self appointed Muskie Cops, a World Record that is positively verified is what it is. personal decision, and that's how it should be IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8823
| I think it would depend on a lot of factors, including what state the fish was actually caught in. The whole idea of muskie celebrity? Heheh. Pretty small audience there. I'd imagine of you played your cards right there would be some monetary value, but not a life-changing amount of money. The pictures and magazine articles would be nice to look back on some day when I am old. I will say this for certain. Where I caught that fish would weigh very heavily on my decision. Some of the places I fish? Back she goes. Not a word to anyone. You might see a picture of it, I may tell you the story of when and how I caught it. I might even tell you how big it was. |
|
| |
|
| $30,000 for your truck, $30,000 for that specific boat, $2,000 fishing gear,$300 in gas for both, Vacation time for that prime week. Countless hours away from the family on the water. Not wanting to get that fish of a life time mounted because its ''very expensive '' priceless! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Esoxaddit: I agree with what you said on the which state,ect... Wisconsin being the wild card of course.
Herb: anyone who catches a proverbial 70 pound muskie would not recieve any measurable flak regarding its size IMHO. Why do I say this? Obviously, the fish would have to be killed, and like the new Michigan record, there would be tons of verifiable pictures and "legitimate" witnesses.
Now, take a look at that Michigan record again and try to imagine something 20 pounds heavier. It would seriously boggle your mind to look at the pictures of it because it would utterly dwarf every muskie before it... EVER!
Who has doubted the size of the Michigan record? The pictures of that monster obviously coincides with the claim so nobody has any difficulty believing. The same thing would apply to a "hypothetical" 70, the lucky person would be fishing royalty and embraced by the muskie community. Even in today's economy there would be significant endorsement offers... and don't forget that $100,000 offered from the Moccasin Bar.
|
|
| |
|
| dcmusky - 11/1/2009 6:41 PM
Stste records were released on Mille lacs & Vermilion and this brings allot of out of stste anglers to MN. Why do you think this site has so many Vermilion outings, they surely don't go to number lakes. I think thumping them would have adverse affects on tourism but thats my oppinion. Why don't more people carry certified scales with them then just get witnesses and GOOD photos then let her go.
Dan Crooms 54
Because a certfied scale is useless in a boat. You will have to transport the fish to shore anyway to get an acurate weight. This will increase the chance for delayed mortality. You can't have it both ways. Keep it and be sure, or let it go and convinve yourself you released a record. Sadly until there is a cpr record to be had, this is how it is. For me, if I get one that I am SURE is a record fish, I'm going to kill it.
If you consider how many "records" have been released, you have to think that quite a few "records" went to the frying pan already too.
It's a fish.... A big fish has spawned many years already, producing a few million eggs each time, and even at a 1% survival rate, probably has a whole bunch of offspring that will make it to maturity. Plus, if you take the fish out of the system, you will be removing all the built up mercury and other pollutants along with it. Harvesting a fish is not always bad, especially a really old one. |
|
| |
|
| So if all the biggies on Mille lacs that were cought in recent years were kept for the wall would as many people come to Mille lacs as have? I think not it's becouse they were let go that the masses came. It's your desition of what to do if you are lucky & skilled enough to get a fish like that in the boat, I'm just saying it might not be in the best interest of a local economy.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8823
| Dan, that all depends on whether or not the local economy is based on tourism, and fishing as a significant component of that. A world record fish caught from some areas could be a goldmine for the local economy. If your "economy" consists of bars, restaraunts, a couple guides, two tackle shops, and a handful of resorts? A world record fish is going to bring money into your town. On an even smaller scale, think about some of the resorts on Eagle Lake for example, like Andy Myers Lodge... Not that Steve is hurting for business, quite the opposite and for good reason! Now, imagnine that one of Herbie's clients catches a world record class fish. You don't think that all the internet hype, and the magazine articles and the newspaper articles, the pictures and muskie shows, the conversations at club meetings, etc. are going to bring people to AML that wouldn't have normally gone, or even heard about it? You don't think that for a handful of years at least there would be a lot of people heading there for a chance and a world record class fish?
I haven't been at this game forever, Dan. But I've been at it long enough to know that anywhere there are big muskies will attract muskie anglers. Lots of them, from far and wide... Mille Lacs, Vermillion, Eagle, Lac Seul, Georgian Bay, Lake of the Woods, Green Bay, The St Lawrence... Everyone readling this thread knows those places, because that's where the biggest muskies are, and anyone serious about chasing these stupid green fish has probably fished at least one of those. And when we go there we stay at some resort or motel, we drink in the bars, we eat in the restaurants, we buy suckers at the bait shop. It doesn't mean diddly squat around the urban fisheries, but in resort town a world record muskie can actually put you on the map.
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I think dc is right in that if ALL of the big fish had been kept in Minnesota, muskie fishing tourism would have dropped off more quickly. However, I still think there would have been a spike because of the publicity. Keep in mind that we are only talking about 1 kept fish here (a state record) and not all the big fish being kept like the old days. Here's where the equation might get a little tricky... if somebody caught and kept a state record lately do you think muskie fishing tourism would spike? I do. I also think that plenty of big fish were in fact kept and publicized (case in point, some guy with a houseboat) and that additional publicity also brought increased muskie fishing tourism.
I personally do not think that the Minnesota state record was broken nearly as often as some people might think. I will not get into nitpicking this fish or that fish. However, using the standard 800 formula on a live released fish as an example… For starters, the formula itself is composed of dead fish with completely collapsed air bladders. A live fish does not have a collapsed air bladder, therefore a larger live girth… all air too.
Let's speculate for a second that the new Michigan record had been successfully released and the dimensions reported were like 56 x 28”. In fact, that’s actually very close to what the dimensions would have been. Now, let's enter Tom Gelb’s certified 53 x 28.5” / 51.125 lb. fish into the mix. If the 56 x 28” was compared to Gelb’s 53 x 28.5” there would have been speculation on how much more the longer fish with almost the same girth would have weighed. I'm pretty sure you would have seen about 55 lbs get kicked around here on Muskie 1st… when in fact it’s certified weight was actually slightly less than Gelb’s.
IMHO, most people do not understand how critical a proper girth measurement is if you want to know the accurate weight of a released muskie… 1” is huge and will significantly alter perceived weight. Just as important as a good measurement is you will need to reduce the girth of your released fish (using the 800 formula) to compensate for the expanded air bladder. How much? Good question… we are still researching it but 1" seems reasonable on truly giant fish of this caliber. In phone conversations with Tom Gelb he told me that he “loosely” measured the girth at 30” inches. Don't believe it? Do a quick check with that 800 formula with the above certified fish and you will see that the formula weight is very close to the actual weight.
As an aside; we've been playing around with a new formula for large fish lately and determined that it takes a very special fish to obtain a 50% girth to length ratio. An example of exactly 50% would be 50” x 25”… doesn't sound like much nowadays eh'? The bottom line is that any released muskie that is claimed to have a 50% G/L should have a pronounced belly like the new Michigan record (it’s not quite 50% by the way). Or how about Tom Gelb’s rare beast with a near 54% G/L… crazy fat and a very-very special rare fish indeed!
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/5/2009 4:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Me personally I could care less about fishing the body of water Gelb cought his fish on becouse I won't get the mounted fish on his wall to bite & niether will you or anybody else. I wonder how many went to the Larry this year with wide eyed excitement just to hope they could get Mcnairs fish just to follow? You do know that if you remove a fiffty five pound fish out of the system it dosn't necessarily mean that another one will take it's place. It's more likely that nitch will be taken up by several smaller fish, if you don't beleive me look at WI.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That's not necessarily the issue in 'Wisconsin'; IMO too broad a brush stroke there, Dan. Not many waters in this state can produce 50# fish (see the research forum under the 'it's the fish' debate), but we are fighting for 50" limits on those that will and have actually accomplished it on a few. Harvest isn't helping Minnesota, either, hopefully the State can stay ahead of the issue and can increase the limits to where harvest isn't likely, similar to what Ontario has done on the Trophy water there.
|
|
| |
|
| I agree but you guys do have allot of waters over there that do have the potential and historicly have produced 50# fish but don't any more. IMHO single hook sucker fishing and stocking too many fish also is a problem along with genetics but I by no means am a fisheries biologist so it's just speculation on my part. Believe me we are working very hard to keep the positive direction going here in MN. Next years state wide 48" min. is a huge step in the right direction and hopefully we can keep moving forward. Most of our harvest is incedental catches and personally I would love to see a muskie stamp but who knows if it will ever happen.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, we don't have 'alot' we have a few, and are doing everything collectively 'we' can to get the limits up to 50" or better on those lakes. There's nothing at all indicating there's any problems with the genetics of the Wisconsin muskies (study underway). LCO, for example, exhibits the same genetics it did in the 1950's according to Dr. Sloss's work. The issue there is harvest coupled with water quality and habitat issues it seems; I believe the limit was changed to 50" not too long ago but the treaty harvest continues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| Jerry Newman - 11/1/2009 11:22 PM
The decision whether to keep or release a potential state record is strictly a personal one for me.
I would put the fish in a FISH ThANK.
http://www.team-fishigan.com/TANK/FISH_ThANK_1.jpg
http://www.team-fishigan.com/TANK/FISH_ThANK_2.jpg
http://www.team-fishigan.com/TANK/FISH_ThANK_3.jpg
Transport it to a cert scale. Weigh it with two bystanding witnesses. And then I would let it go back in the lake.
Edited by mrymar 11/5/2009 8:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | Jerry Newman - 11/5/2009 4:41 PM For starters, the formula itself is composed of dead fish with completely collapsed air bladders. A live fish does not have a collapsed air bladder, therefore a larger live girth… all air too. IMHO, most people do not understand how critical a proper girth measurement is if you want to know the accurate weight of a released muskie… 1” is huge and will significantly alter perceived weight. Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is? A fish with a 28 inch girth doesn't necessarily have a full belly...
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I guess the “bottom line” or point that I was trying to make is how to rightfully apply the 800 formula to live versus dead muskies. The girth of a live fish should be reduced accordingly if you do not want “inflated” results from the air bladder.
“Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is?” Good question JRedig! My answer is that an accurate girth measurement is more of a deciding factor on obtaining a close formula weight.
Without getting too complicated here, any reasonable stomach contents are going to increase the girth of the fish proportionately and the 800 formula will still basically work the same. An exception might be stomachs containing some type of oversized prey expanding the girth disproportionately. Foreign materials added to the stomach will adversely skew the results too.
Any fish is going to be heavier with a full stomach versus an empty stomach of course. However, the stomach contents will still be reasonably accounted for with an expanded girth. Hope this makes sense to you?
You can also perform a little experiment at home and measure your own girth before and after Thanksgiving dinner
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/6/2009 10:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
| "Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is? A fish with a 28 inch girth doesn't necessarily have a full belly..."
A fish with a 28 inch girth with an empty stomach wouldn't have a 28" girth with a full belly and you can take that to the bank.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jerry basically just said that. Is it January already? |
|
| |
|
| Just thought I'd sum the whole thing up with one sentence. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Everyone is entitled to what they wish for it. They caught it, its the fish of a lifetime for any of us. All I can say besides my above post is this. Anyone that would bash someone for keeping a world record of any fish needs a reality check. I cannot see where anyone gets off doing that. And your right. Wife would not me spend money for a mount. Trust me she would when you tell her what you can make off it.
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 11/7/2009 11:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I really feel the Spray and Johnson fish should have been released. By removing these two genetic freaks we really don't have any idea how large their ultimate size might have been. Apparently they never contributed any of their genetics to where they were captured as there's never been any fish caught from there that were anywhere near those sizes. This points to those two fish as being sterile. Kind of reminds me of the Williamson fish which was also speculated as being sterile and contributing all of its energy towards growth and not reproduction. These sterile females supposedly re-absorb their egg mass giving them a massive amount of additional protein causing an exceptionally rapid growth rate. As far as I'm concerned this tests my "upper confidence limit" on what to believe.
|
|
| |
|
| That's actually sort of humorous, Guest. I'm thinking that was your intent.
Neither of the fish you mention look anything at all like the Williamson fish. Neither were genetic freaks, either. So how would they be as big as they were claimed? Obvious answer to that one.
|
|
| |
|
| Williamson fish may not have been sterile,No one knows
The gonads were never verified by officials
It was a healthy 17 year old that was happy
Most species abort their eggs,very few species absorb their eggs in exception of dogs.
The absorption of eggs by fish has never been observed or documented in my looking's in scientific documentation.
A fish can support a 28 inch girth with air in the swim bladder just as much as a full belly and not weigh the same
The swim bladder does not necessarily collapse after mortality,in some case it remains inflated hours after.It all depends on how the fish is manipulated and kept,whether in water or on ice and amount of air.Keeping the fish in a cool state slows the degradation and collapse of internal organs.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | A fish can support a 28 inch girth with air in the swim bladder just as much as a full belly and not weigh the same Good thing I didn't go to the bank...
Edited by JRedig 11/16/2009 8:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | The fish used to develop the 800 formula were all dead with collapsed air bladders. To apply the 800 formula to a live release, the expanded air bladder needs to be accounted for with a reduction in girth. It doesn't really matter how long it takes, every swim bladder will eventually collapse after the fish dies.
By chance Martin Williamson called me this morning and I asked him specifically about his fish being sterile. He said that was the first he heard about that, he said he sent the guts to Castleman so maybe ask him.
It's fascinating to me that at 64 ½ years old Martin is still out there plugging away at the old haunts... released six fish they figured went over 30 pounds this year. Over the weekend they released a 50 x 28” that he speculated was a male. The reason he speculated (with a chuckle) was because they can now look for it's female running mate!
Edited by Jerry Newman 11/16/2009 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Editor's Note, the following is an excerpt from a portion of a deleted post:
"You mean to tell me that Martin Williamson sent the guts of his fish to John Casselman and yet he never found out anything about it?"
Jerry's Answer:
I didn't say that! My only comment was that he never heard anything about his fish being sterile. Four or five years ago he sent me a copy of the letter that Casselman sent to him regarding his fish. The letter contained a lot of information, nothing about the fish being sterile though. |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | guest - 11/7/2009 10:49 AM "Isn't the bottom line here that girth isn't really the deciding factor on weight, but rather that stomach content is? A fish with a 28 inch girth doesn't necessarily have a full belly..." A fish with a 28 inch girth with an empty stomach wouldn't have a 28" girth with a full belly and you can take that to the bank. Guest a reminder of what you said and what I said. Due to the air bladder, what you said in this quote could be FALSE, it depends on each individual fish and the circumstances it's in when caught.
A fish with an inflated air bladder could have a 28 inch girth on an empty stomach and the same fish could have a 28 inch girth with a full stomach and it would be heavier. Or maybe it has a partially inflated air bladder and a partially full stomach and it gets a 28 inch girth that way and has yet another weight. What if it has a belly full of 3 cisco's or 20 smaller perch? Which weighs more? Girth is a misleading way to judge weight accurately.
Edited by JRedig 11/16/2009 1:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
| JRedig,
A fish with 28" girth with a FULL belly will weigh close to the SAME as a fish with a 28" girth and an empty belly as the girth in each case is comprised of almost all meat. An empty belly contributes very little to the girth. A fish with a 28" girth and an empty belly has a lot more "meat" above the belly than one with this same girth with a full stomach.
If you want to argue about an inflated air bladder you must remember that you are talking only about live fish and in that case they ALL have air in them to some degree. This could cause a weight variation but only in LIVE fish. This is why the 800 weight formula needs to be adjusted if you want to use it on live releases.
The only way girth could be misleading as a weight indicator is if we are talking about live fish. On dead fish it's quite reliable.
|
|
| |
|
| Why doesn't Mr. Casselman share the information he found about the Williamson fish with everyone? Probably because he didn't learn anything from it. It's also interesting to learn that Martin Williamson sent the guts instead of having Mr. Casselman remove them himself. I supposed this doesn't mean anything either? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | How about you call Dr. Casselman and ask, instead of suggestings some sort of 'conspiracy theory'?
|
|
| |
State Record Question