|
|
| My top five picks are:
1) Georgian Bay
2) Lake Nipeeing
3) Ottawa River
4) St. Lawrence River
5) Lake St. Clair
Interested to hear others opinions.
Cordially,
Sucker Minnow  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | st. lawrence, georgian bay. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| My pick has to be LCO or The Chip because 52" Musky's out of there have been 60 plus pound world records allready. No place else on earth has 60 lbers at 52 inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| Eagle,Georgian Bay or st lawrence. |
|
| |
|
| I am going with Utah or New Mexico...BR |
|
| |
|
| I'm not so sure the existing records will fall in my lifetime. (Whatever existing record you choose to accept as legit). They are over 50 years old.
I would say the St Lawrence offers the best chance at a world class fish (over 50 lbs)
Jim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1237
Location: South Portsmouth, KY | a farm pond and it will be caught trolling which will equal in no satisfaction |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | St. Lawrence |
|
| |
|
Posts: 122
Location: North Central Illinois | Mr Musky - 6/12/2010 8:35 PM
My pick has to be LCO or The Chip because 52" Musky's out of there have been 60 plus pound world records allready. No place else on earth has 60 lbers at 52 inches.
Seriously, cut it out..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20282
Location: oswego, il | Everyhting is bigger in texas and if they ever stock muskies, it will come from there. |
|
| |
|
| Kewaunee WI nuclear power plant waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1314
Location: WI | An unobtainable goal in my opinion. The Larry or Georgian Bay have the best odds. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | In the mouth. If I have to be more specific left corner. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| Green Bay |
|
| |
|
Location: Ontario | I have to say Ottawa River - to give me some hope |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Tiger Cat Flowage |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Somewhere in Wisconsin. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | muskie_man - 6/12/2010 11:13 PM
a farm pond and it will be caught trolling which will equal in no satisfaction
to each his own. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | If I ever get my pond built it will be in Iowa  Nothing like a musky fed trout everyday! |
|
| |
|
| What water, if any, consistently produces monster fish? How close was the McNair fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1237
Location: South Portsmouth, KY | JakeStCroixSkis - 6/13/2010 10:33 AM
muskie_man - 6/12/2010 11:13 PM
a farm pond and it will be caught trolling which will equal in no satisfaction
to each his own.
you obviously didnt read the trolling equals no satisfaction thread from last year.funny stuff
Edited by muskie_man 6/13/2010 11:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 96
Location: Eau Claire | Between Lake Mills and Waterloo in the old gravel pit where i've been growing her. She's graduated from eating stray dogs to calf's she'll soon be ready... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | muskie_man - 6/13/2010 12:44 PM
JakeStCroixSkis - 6/13/2010 10:33 AM
muskie_man - 6/12/2010 11:13 PM
a farm pond and it will be caught trolling which will equal in no satisfaction
to each his own.
you obviously didnt read the trolling equals no satisfaction thread from last year.funny stuff
correct, i did not. it may have been before i was registered here lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | The McNair fish was close, Obrien fish Close, Bristow fish Close, Lac suel has put out a bunch of fish over 50 pounds. It just takes one of those 60 pounders to eat a 10 pound Pike and you got her done eh? St Lawrence. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 264
| I think there is for sure the Minnesota state record in Mille Lacs and probably the world record. Catching it is a different story with how Mille Lacs is fishing the past couple years. |
|
| |
|
| Green Bay!!!!!
Northern part of the bay |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Until the current BS records are DQ'd. No where! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | what are the odds that the cave run record willget beat anytime soon? any cr veterans here? |
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher - 6/13/2010 11:51 PM
The McNair fish was close, Obrien fish Close, Bristow fish Close, Lac suel has put out a bunch of fish over 50 pounds. It just takes one of those 60 pounders to eat a 10 pound Pike and you got her done eh? St Lawrence. Kingfisher
close to what fish?
please dont put bristow's fish in that class.
would be more smart to add names like Davidson or Williamson.
for me no doubt courte oreilles |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1237
Location: South Portsmouth, KY | JakeStCroixSkis - 6/14/2010 10:40 AM
what are the odds that the cave run record willget beat anytime soon? any cr veterans here?
maybe. there are def big fish 40+ pounders in the lake.if we hit the cycle and year class of big fish that happened in 2008 again watch out.We just need to find one with a big carp in its stomach!! |
|
| |
|
| Just a guess but I would say Pierce Lake in Illinois. |
|
| |
|
| What do you mean by the NEXT world record muskie? KenK hit the nail on the head. The current records are nothing but "myths" and until they are rightfully disqualified there's no point in this discussion.
The mount of the 1949 Spray world record has a head to total length ratio unlike any living muskie. It's a crime that biologists have failed to point this out to the NFWFHoF.
The latest shenanigan by the NFWFHoF has been to reinstate the Mabry Harper walleye which their former regime rightfully disqualified. Former Minnesota fisheries biologist Dick Sternberg convinced the former regime the fish was bogus and the story was in Outdoor Life magazine in 1996. Now, because of John Dettloff, we are again stuck with a bogus record walleye.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| There's only one thing I know for certain... it's gunna be somewhere I'm not! lol |
|
| |
|
| My vote goes to Crow lake by a lake trout fisherman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | pepsiboy - 6/14/2010 10:20 AM
Kingfisher - 6/13/2010 11:51 PM
The McNair fish was close, Obrien fish Close, Bristow fish Close, Lac suel has put out a bunch of fish over 50 pounds. It just takes one of those 60 pounders to eat a 10 pound Pike and you got her done eh? St Lawrence. Kingfisher
would be more smart
More smart? Ironic someone suggesting a smarter way to do something comes up with this statement. LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
| The records are the records, Get over it and stop peeing and moaning about how they should be DQ'd.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | good ole Pennsylvania on the allegheny reservoir |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| It is definately going to be a fish from BIG WATER such as the great lakes system---And I have to believe that it may have already been caught and released--- I have seen pics from an fishing partner of a 58 x 30 in his boat last year on the great lakes---fish was absolutely caught and released. I have to believe there have been others larger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 247
Location: Uxbridge Ontario | I am going to have to say the Canadian side of Georgian bay (French or Moon river delta) or St. Lawrence. These areas have the most "in-question" potential world record fish in the last 5 years. Hard to argue this... ??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | esox911 - 6/15/2010 7:23 AM
It is definately going to be a fish from BIG WATER such as the great lakes system---And I have to believe that it may have already been caught and released--- I have seen pics from an fishing partner of a 58 x 30 in his boat last year on the great lakes---fish was absolutely caught and released. I have to believe there have been others larger.
dang man! any chance you could share that picture with us? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 832
Location: Maple Grove, MN | If by "world record", you mean the "official" record that was supposedly caught by Louis Spray?
Realistically, few Muskies over 70 lbs ever existed and the odds of any one person contacting a fish of that size in their lifetime is very small. Having seen some very large Muskies that may have pushed over the 50 lb mark, I cannot honestly imagine a fish that would weigh 70 lbs. I have seen one that may reach the 60 lb mark, but that is a really big "maybe". I imagine a few others may have seen a 70 lb class fish, but I never have.
That said, the obvious choice would be Mille Lacs. Historically, the Muskie population in Mille Lacs is now in a very unusual situation that might, and I repeat might, eventually result in a record fish.
Mille Lacs is a relatively new fishery and the first time stocked Muskies are now reaching their maximum size. Just due to the timing of the fishery, the Muskie population in Mille Lacs now contains an unusually high percentage of very large Muskies. At the same time, there are unusually high tullipee and perch populations which have left the Muskies fat, happy, and very difficult to catch. The current conditions should allow the Muskie population to grow at a maximum rate. At some point in the future, (days, months, or years), the baitfish populations should go back to more normal levels and the Muskie fishing on Mille Lacs should improve. (That is a "should" and not for sure.) With these conditions, it is possible that some of those Muskies could obtain unusually large dimensions. And it is possible that someone just might get lucky and catch one of those really big fish.
No matter how you cut it, the odds of a record Muskie (+70 lbs) getting caught is very low on any body of water. Realistically, on most waters the odds are zero because fish that large do not exist there.
All that said, the odds of catching a Muskie that is larger than the true size of the Spray fish (low 40 lb range) is actually pretty good on many waters these days. Many fish larger than that fish are caught every year. Gosh, even I did that. Just look at the fish by my login name. And if I can do it, then most any experienced Muskie fisherman can.
I hope someone manages to catch a +70 lber soon so this entire WR topic comes to a rest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | never get tired of looking at these. howard wagner is the man!!
52.5 x 28: 52lbs allegheny river:
52.5 x 28.5 53lb 9oz lake erie:
Edited by adudeuknow 6/15/2010 1:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 832
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Truly huge fish! And to think how much larger than those it would take to get a 70 lb Muskie. Kind of mind boggling. Eh?
Not sure which side of the boat I'd run to if I ever saw a 70 lb Muskie. Maybe to the side with the port-a-potty? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | mind boggling indeed! 70lbs woud scare the bejeezus out of me... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | its been said on other threads before but if you check out Rich clarke out of thousand islands website..thats why my vote stays here on the slr for the next world record. that guy has a nack for catching the big girls. also somewhat recently the mcnair fish.. i agree with others when i say i wish someone would stumble upon a true freak of nature musky and put the controversy of the "world record" 6 feet under.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | how would everyone feel if someone caught a 75lb musky and killed it to get the record? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | i dont know how id feel. but i can say that it wouldnt be up to me to decide whether it was right or wrong to kill the fish. as long as the individual was doing it legally. i do believe in cpr but i wouldnt push it on anyone or make anyone feel guilty about a personal choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | Sugar lake near Saint Cloud, Mn. Heard there were some monsters in there. Ha, Ha |
|
| |
|
| "how would everyone feel if someone caught a 75lb musky and killed it to get the record?" Pretty ridiculous question, a 75lb musky is as likely as Louie catching three world records in 10 years based on what we already know about musky. Bottom line is, they do not get that big, never have, never will.
The theory of some giant 60lb eating a 10 pound fish to make a 70lb is pretty far-fetched too because first you have to assume that a musky can weigh 60lbs empty. Williamson's 61lb fish was not empty, O'Brien's65lb fish was not empty, and there is a fair amount of controversy surrounding the weight of that fish. as I recall Williamson's giant had eaten 3 good sized fish already and it just managed to tickle 60lbs.
Speculating on some of these other released fish weighing "x", is just shear speculation. It's still neat to dream about one and fun to speculate, but reality is that anything over 55lb is about as big as they get and there will be no "next WR".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Jody Dahm's 54 X 30 from Mille Lacs was caught the beginning of October, way before the cisco spawn. By the various formulas, that fish was close to 60#. A good meal from .............? Did Jody catch the biggest fish in the lake that evening? I highly doubt it. They do exist, fact not fiction, East and West. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so, if a 60# fish is holding a 10# fish in it's mouth when caught ... is the fish 60# or 70#? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | jonnysled - 6/16/2010 11:49 AM
so, if a 60# fish is holding a 10# fish in it's mouth when caught ... is the fish 60# or 70#?
thats a good question |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| I think I'd kill a 75 pound muskie. In fact, if I ever catch one, you can skip the interviews, and just print this statement:
"I don't care that I have a world record fish to my credit. It's a FISH. In the grand scheme of life, nobody cares. It's a FISH, did I mention that? Nobody is going to remember my name or my face. I may get a few bucks out of it if I play my cards right, maybe get my face in a magazine that only 1 in about 10,000 people have even heard of. But that's not why I killed it. I killed it because I've been muskiy fishing for a number of years, and in that time I've heard more whining and hemming and hawing over records and weights and who lied about what and when than you can ever IMAGINE. And now? That's all over -- here it is. The biggest muskie EVER. And it's dead. I'm a conservationist, let me just state that for the record. I'd much prefer to release all my fish, and I'd like to see others do the same, because catch and release works. It's why we have the great fishing we do today. So you're going to ask me again why I killed this fish. As I said earlier, I've been hearing all this record nonsense for years. People have literally dedicated their lives to researching and trying to prove or disprove this and that record. Lifelong friendships have been destroyed, it's actually come to physical violence. Yes, over a fish. Now?? 10,000 muskie anglers can forget all this nonsense and get back to fishing. That's worth way more than a single fish ever will be."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Jeff,
You forgot to thank the Academy...
S. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Addict,
The only issue with your public statement is the 10K number, that isn't even close. Way more than that these days...the sport is growing, despite the economy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | I doubt even 10,000 muskie fishermen care about the records, that's why they continue to be records. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| esoxaddict - 6/16/2010 11:03 AM
I think I'd kill a 75 pound muskie. In fact, if I ever catch one, you can skip the interviews, and just print this statement:
"I don't care that I have a world record fish to my credit. It's a FISH. In the grand scheme of life, nobody cares. It's a FISH, did I mention that? Nobody is going to remember my name or my face. I may get a few bucks out of it if I play my cards right, maybe get my face in a magazine that only 1 in about 10,000 people have even heard of. But that's not why I killed it. I killed it because I've been muskiy fishing for a number of years, and in that time I've heard more whining and hemming and hawing over records and weights and who lied about what and when than you can ever IMAGINE. And now? That's all over -- here it is. The biggest muskie EVER. And it's dead. I'm a conservationist, let me just state that for the record. I'd much prefer to release all my fish, and I'd like to see others do the same, because catch and release works. It's why we have the great fishing we do today. So you're going to ask me again why I killed this fish. As I said earlier, I've been hearing all this record nonsense for years. People have literally dedicated their lives to researching and trying to prove or disprove this and that record. Lifelong friendships have been destroyed, it's actually come to physical violence. Yes, over a fish. Now?? 10,000 muskie anglers can forget all this nonsense and get back to fishing. That's worth way more than a single fish ever will be."
Even though you killed it, was it caught legally? I heard you speared it from the bow of the boat when it was on your partners figure 8, a friend of my brothers kid said it was full of rocks when it was weighed even though it's been verified, Billy Bob said the scale it was weighed on was recently used to weigh slaughtered hogs on and said the scale was not verified, plus Jimmy Dean down the street said you measured it with your rake handle and then transferred the measurement to a yard stick held together with super glue.
hahaha. Just messin' with ya man, love your statement...I'll print it out and keep it in my bait box for future use when the WR ends up in my boat. haha. Fish on.
Dangit....3 more hours till I get out of here and hop in the truck headed to Lake X!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| I forgot to answer the original question!
I suspect the world record will come from a river system, somewhere in Northwest Ontario.
I also suspect it will be caught by a walleye angler, on a jig/red tail chub, behind a beetle spin, on 6# test, by someone who has never been muskie fishing in their life. |
|
| |
|
| Allegheny reservoir(?), PA!
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | hahahahaha...while i do believe their are some bigguns in there it was meant to be a joke.
Edited by adudeuknow 6/16/2010 2:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Funny, lived here my whole life and wasn't aware that there was an american-side of Georgian Bay ! |
|
| |
|
| esox911 - 6/15/2010 6:23 AM
It is definately going to be a fish from BIG WATER such as the great lakes system---And I have to believe that it may have already been caught and released--- I have seen pics from an fishing partner of a 58 x 30 in his boat last year on the great lakes---fish was absolutely caught and released. I have to believe there have been others larger.
Pictures ?? |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/15/2010 12:04 PM
If by "world record", you mean the "official" record that was supposedly caught by Louis Spray? Realistically, few Muskies over 70 lbs ever existed and the odds of any one person contacting a fish of that size in their lifetime is very small.
Hi I disagree. Growth charts reflect that a musky has the potential to reach 85lbs. One has not been caught yet, but theoretically one or more could and probably exist.
Cordially,
SM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I am working on my buddy to let his pics of the 58x30 that was caught in his boat last year be shown--so far he is reluctant to do so---lots of haters out there who always secong guess these things--He is a member here and has seen and read many such posts before---Also there is a very distinct landmark in the backgound so he would have to photoshop that out of the picture. Still may get it up here and EVEN if it isn't 58 x 30 ( i wasn't there so I can only take his word) I can assure you it is AWESOME----Just like some of the other great lakes fish posted on this thread----There are some true giants out there on the great lakes and the st lawrence---a few have been caught and posted over the last couple seasons----Lots of guys don't want the B.S. and attention to what they believe is their WATER. I will keep working on it and I hope to get it for you---Giants are out there but are there 70LBer's????? I hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | GW - - Waus you there Charley, have you seen Spray's skin mount, may-be the phony graphite mount Mania had at the Chicago show. Anyway the next 70#er could come from any of the big Mn.. lakes and the Mississippi river stran lakes. All the great lakes and the waters that feed the great lakes. Go Fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Doesn't really matter where it is caught, it will be discredited, by a bunch of SPORTSMEN, that are mad cause they weren't the ones to catch it.
Wouldn't suprise me if it hasn't been eclipsed many times over but the MEN who caught it but didn't publicize it cause they didn't want to be called liars, along with their friends, witnesses, partners and offspring.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Shoot2Kill - 6/16/2010 12:43 PM
esoxaddict - 6/16/2010 11:03 AM
I think I'd kill a 75 pound muskie. In fact, if I ever catch one, you can skip the interviews, and just print this statement:
"I don't care that I have a world record fish to my credit. It's a FISH. In the grand scheme of life, nobody cares. It's a FISH, did I mention that? Nobody is going to remember my name or my face. I may get a few bucks out of it if I play my cards right, maybe get my face in a magazine that only 1 in about 10,000 people have even heard of. But that's not why I killed it. I killed it because I've been muskiy fishing for a number of years, and in that time I've heard more whining and hemming and hawing over records and weights
Even though you killed it, was it caught legally? I heard you speared it from the bow of the boat when it was on your partners figure 8, a friend of my brothers kid said it was full of rocks when it was weighed even though it's been verified, Billy Bob said the scale it was weighed on was recently used to weigh slaughtered hogs on and said the scale was not verified, plus Jimmy Dean down the street said you measured it with your rake handle and then transferred the measurement to a yard stick held together with super glue.
hahaha. Just messin' with ya man, love your statement...I'll print it out and keep it in my bait box for future use when the WR ends up in my boat. haha. Fish on.
EXACTELY |
|
| |
|
| Buckeyemusky - 6/17/2010 12:16 AM
Doesn't really matter where it is caught, it will be discredited, by a bunch of SPORTSMEN, that are mad cause they weren't the ones to catch it.
Wouldn't suprise me if it hasn't been over but the MEN who caught it but didn't publicize it cause they didn't want to be called liars, along with their friends, witnesses, partners and offspring.
This is preposterous because the vast majority of fishermen have no clue about the musky record situation. The only people that are "mad" are the ones who support the phony records or think that people have "eclipsed many times" the 70pound mark. Seriously, a picture of an honest to goodness 70 pounder (or 58x30) would be noticeably bigger than anything we have ever seen before. Like somebody else said, there would be no hiding BIG!
There is no chance for a new world record IMHO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 832
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Sucker Minnow,
Growth charts are one thing. But there is no evidence that Muskies as large as 85 lbs have ever existed. There have been a couple of Muskies that "might" have been over 70 lbs, but that is a big "might" as none of them were weighed on certified scales.
The fact is that Muskies that hit the 60 lb mark are extremely rare and the odds of anyone, anywhere catching one that would weigh over 60 lbs this year is not very high. The odds of anyone, anywhere catching one this year over 70 lbs is very low. The proof is in the pudding. What we are seeing are Muskies maxing out in the mid to high 50 lb range with very few ever approaching the 60 lb mark.
I am not saying that is impossible for a Muskie with the perfect growing conditions and unusual genetics to reach 70 lbs. But the odds of that occuring AND someone managing to catch that fish are extremely low.
All that said, Mile Lacs may have the perfect environment right now to grow a fish like that. The incredible amount of high-quality forage, fish nearing their maximum size, and extremely difficult fishing conditions may, and I repeat may, allow some Muskies to reach their maximum size. And maybe, one of those fish will grow to unprecented size and just maybe someone will catch it. Maybe.
If it does happen, I expect it will be a serious Muskie fishermen who has put in their time. Someone like Luke R, Gregg T, Jason H, Steve J, Steve S, or one of their clients or friends. It sure won't be me.
Herb |
|
| |
|
| ChinWhiskers,
I have seen Spray's skin mount, have you? The replica's actually look MORE like what a real 31.25" x 63.5" muskie should look like than the skin mount. As I said, this enhanced skin mount has a head to total length ratio unlike ANY living muskie. This ALONE should be more than enough proof that the actual fish never existed in the claimed dimensions. It was a very stupid move to add additional length behind the head of a muskie obviously in the low 50" range. There was never a need for the photogrammetry as the head to toal length ratio is absolute proof in itself. |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/17/2010 10:57 AM
Sucker Minnow,
Growth charts are one thing. But there is no evidence that Muskies as large as 85 lbs have ever existed. Herb
Hello Herb,
There is evidence that muskies can grow up to 85lb. The longest known musky was 66-inches, unfortunately it's girth was small, i.e. a skinny musky. The evidence is a musky can grow to 66-inches, if coupled with a large girth, many have been caught, it could weigh in as an 85lb musky.
Cordially,
SM |
|
| |
|
| Sucker Minnow - 6/17/2010 12:17 PM
There is evidence that muskies can grow up to 85lb. The longest known musky was 66-inches, unfortunately it's girth was small, i.e. a skinny musky. The evidence is a musky can grow to 66-inches, if coupled with a large girth, many have been caught, it could weigh in as an 85lb musky.
SM
SM, did you read Ramsell's latest compendium? That 66" Muskie was admitted to have been "overstated" by Roger Halverson himself. I don't think there has ever been an empty musky that weighed 60lbls without something in its stomach (natural or otherwise). I have no idea how you can justify 85lbs? What evidence?
|
|
| |
|
| Chinwhiskers, the replica should look proportional to the skin mount and the skin mount should look proportional to the real fish if everything is on the up and up. I haven't seen the skin mount like GW, but I have seen the replica. It was constructed using the dimensions the fish supposedly was and it sure looks like a cross between a musky and a tuna to me. LOL!
Years ago a friend of mine ordered one of those Spray replicas to hang in a prominent place in his cabin, he said he knew there was a problem with the size the instant he picked up the replica and is still ashamed that he got one of those outlandish things, the replica is now "dethroned", and resides in the corner of the garage now.
I would like to see somebody Spray's height standing next to one of those replicas. Heck, that should be proof enough just how phony that thing is in and of itself! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 832
Location: Maple Grove, MN | SM,
You mention a hoax as evidence? A fish that was discredited by the person who caught it? That is only evidence that some people lie about the size of their fish and then later admit it. Maybe you didn't know that was a hoax, eh?
When even the liars haven't lied about an 85 lb Muskie (or even a 75 lb Muskie for that matter), it is extremely difficult to believe an 85 lb Muskie is possible.
I doubt a new WR will happen any time soon because the factual evidence indicates that Muskies that large may have never existed. It is possible that no Muskie has ever grown as large as the WR claimed by Louis Spray. Not in WI, MN, Canada, the St. Lawrance - not anywhere. It may have never, ever happened and may never happen. It is highly likely that every Muskie reported over 65 lbs was either a hoax, incorrectly weighed or both.
I truly hope someone can catch a +70 lb Muskie and put this whole WR thing to rest. But I am not going to hold my breath.
Edited by Herb_b 6/17/2010 1:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/17/2010 1:10 PM
I doubt a new WR will happen any time soon because the factual evidence indicates that Muskies that large may have never existed. It is possible that no Muskie has ever grown as large as the WR claimed by Louis Spray.
Opinions are like noses, we all have one. What is Herb's opinion on how large a Muskellunge can grow: Weight, Length and Girth?
Cordially,
SM |
|
| |
|
| Herb_b - 6/17/2010 10:57 If it does happen, I expect it will be a serious Muskie fishermen who has put in their time. Someone like Luke R, Gregg T, Jason H, Steve J, Steve S, or one of their clients or friends. It sure won't be me. Herb It will be kind've hard for them to catch a fish out of Mille Lacs if they are not fishing there. Steve S. is probably the only one who still fishes there regularly. Better start learning to troll open water in a 132,000 acre lake. You might have a chance at a state record fish out of Mille Lacs. World record not a chance, just my opinion though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
| Herb_b should probably quit on this subject while hes still ahead and hold on to those thoughts, sound pretty suspect, LOL
Edited by Slow Rollin 6/17/2010 2:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 832
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I just base my opinion on what I have seen myself and what has actually been caught. The fact is that there has not been one single uncontested Muskie ever weighed to be over 65 lbs. Not one. Not ever. Even Ken Obriens 65 lber has been questioned by some.
If I am wrong, please list all the certified and uncontested Muskies ever caught or, for that matter, found dead that weighed over 65 lbs. Please?
If Muskies did grow to 70 lbs, wouldn't a few certifiable fish that size have been caught by now or at the least a few approaching that size? Either they don't exist or they are very rare.
I hope that I am wrong and someone reading this thread catches a +70 lb Muskie and sets a new, certified WR.
About Mille Lacs: I know few people are fishing Mille Lacs now. But that is because the Muskies aren't biting and not because the fish aren't there. When the fishing improves on Mille Lacs, as it almost certainly will at some point in the future, the landings will once again be full and every spot will have boats on it 24/7. All this time the fish are still growing and the greatly reduced fishing pressure may actually help the fish get larger. The fish simply aren't stressed. That lack of stress should help the fish grow and reach their maximum potential size. And there is a chance, however small, that Mille Lacs could someday produce an enormous fish or two as a result.
If one looks hard enough, sometimes there is an opportunity where one least expects it.
I have to admit that there is nothing wrong with believing there is a WR in the lake you fish. It probably makes fishing more fun, eh?
Good luck all. May the force be with you and may you all catch a WR.
Edited by Herb_b 6/18/2010 12:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Sup everybody. Brand new to this site. Looks like a thread on the location of the next world record has turned into a dispute on the current world record. I don't doubt that the weight was exaggerated, but that fish was 63.5 inches, right? That alone should make it the world record, but for some reason they go by weight. I know I'd rather have a 20 lb 50" than a 25 lb 45". In any case, props to whoever said LCO and Big Chip. I'm sure there's probably one swimmin' around in Sturgeon Bay or wherever they are in the Great Lakes, but I've seen a ********in' monster in couderay (at least 5 feet) and have heard of evidence of one in the Chippewa Flowage. Thing is though I don't know if the one I saw was actually catchable as I was getting several follows on a spot, took a cast, and this super-smart MONSTER just came up and looked at me (it did not follow my bait). It's a fishin' story though so I won't take it personal upon those who don't believe me. The less people fishin' couderay the better. Rock on all muskie fisherman. Peace.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 247
Location: Uxbridge Ontario | I cant believe how bent some of you guys get on this subject. Just because a fish of certain category has not yet been, recorded, killed or weighed and a WR does not mean that one does not exist or for that matter ever been caught. There was even a article in (what i thing was) Musky Hunter a few years ago of a muskie skull found on the shore of a Lake (no idea which one... but lets call it Lake Reallybig) where the estimated length of the fish was pushing 65". Not length does not really estimate length without a girth number, but that is a big fish. If a 55" fish can weight 50'lbs+... when what could a 60" fish weight. We all know, 60" fish are possible, but weather that are still in their prime is another story. I certainly beleive there are freak fish out there. There has to be. Look at some of these gigantic humans. And let me tell you (to the people that say all muskie need to looks the same) some of these people do not fit the typical mold of proportions. I think going out on a limb and saying there is "evidence" that there cannot be fish over the current WR is ludicrous. There is more unfilled water out there than there is fished. There is more unknown about some of these lakes than there is known, and there is larger fish out there than anyone can even anticipate.... my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Unfortunately, if you do ever beat ol' Louis Spray's record,it will have to be well over 70 LBS to do so. Unfortunately, the fish has to be deceased, weighed on dry land on a certified scale, by a certified weighmaster within 30 days of the catch and witnessed by two other bystanders. A fish can lose a lot of weight after it croaks, unless you have a freezer aboard your boat it may drop several pounds once belly up. The IGFA has a laundry list of rules for achieving an official world record.
Junior records can be released though - let the kid take the rod! But don't hand it off, it negates any legal catch in the IGFA rules.
IMO there will never be a 70# musky legitimately captured - ever. An absolutely legit 60#, chances are slim, but maybe. If so, it will definitely be captured in a place closely fed by the sea. Like many others my vote is for the Larry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 126
| The hulk - 6/17/2010 1:01 PM
Steamboat - 6/16/2010 3:42 PM
Funny, lived here my whole life and wasn't aware that there was an american-side of Georgian Bay !
Thats some funny chit.
As for dadson catching the big one. That's even funnier.
And why is that funny?? I'd say he as as good or better chance than anyone out there of catching her. Why not??
Attachments
----------------
 my fish 027 resize.JPG (115KB - 913 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| HomeTime - 6/18/2010 8:08 AM
I certainly beleive there are freak fish out there. There has to be. Look at some of these gigantic humans. And let me tell you (to the people that say all muskie need to looks the same) some of these people do not fit the typical mold of proportions.
True...you increase your chances of witnessing this type of thing in human female form when you hang out at Forest and Langlade County bars around bar time. |
|
| |
