|
|
| ??  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | not trying to be a smart*** but what is the max size a human can grow? its the same principal, we don't know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| I wish I could answer that question |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
Location: Duluth, MN | 69lb 15oz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | 72 inches is the longest they can possibly grow - unless they are living near a nuclear power plant, then all bets are off. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The maximum size of a particular Muskie will vary depending on many factors including but not limited to genetics, forage base, and fishing pressure. Many lakes cannot produce large Muskies simply because the genetics and/or forage is not there. With other bodies of water, the fish may be able to reach the maximum size potential - whatever that is.
The fact is the maximum potential size is unknown. All we know is the largest Muskies ever caught and/or found and many of those fish are disputed. The largest undisputed Muskies are in the low to mid 60 lb range and low 60 inch range. Beyond that, no one knows. There are many educated "guesses", but that is it. Fact is, your guess is probably as good as anyone elses.
Do +70 lb Muskies actually exist? Maybe, but we really don't know. While there is no evidence to prove they do, there is also no evidence to prove they don't. You can't prove something that has not ever been found or prove a negative.
In my opinion, the many unknowns about Muskies is part of what makes Muskie fishing so much fun. What the largest size Muskie is/could be is one of many unknowns. Just buying a lure is an unknown because you never know if it will work on your lake. There are no sure-fire fishing trips, techniques, or tackle. Its all a guessing game to some extent. But all that makes it fun, eh? 
Good luck fishing.
Edited by Herb_b 6/21/2010 10:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
| The max obtainable size should always be the largest known size or weight. Nice reply Herb, but there I think it's pretty safe to say there is no dispute on the record fish from Hayward, based on sound research, they are 100% phony. That pretty much leaves us with the Canada 60s of O'Brian and Williams. Last I heard, the WRMA guys are still working to find the answer, should be interesting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I doubt the largest muskie that ever lived was ever caught by an angler. There's no way to know how big the largest one ever was. I heard the DNR netted a 108 pound fish once, although I can't recall where. There's no way I would agree that the maximum obtainable size for any fish should be simply based on the largest one caught. The odds would be astronomical in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | what is going to be the winning powerball lotery number for july 27th? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8835
| I don't think the biggest fish in the system typically hang around where we fish. I think they're out in the main lake basins, in deep water, feeding on whitefish or some forage that's more than twice the size of our lures. I think it's rare that anyone even gets a glimpse of the biggest 5% of the fish in any given system. You may get one chasing a walleye up from 30 feet every so often, but as far as seeing them follow baits or catching them using the methods we use? Not likely in my opinion. I believe 70# is possible. I'd believe a length in the mid 60" range is possible. But much over that? Until I see one myself, I call those "fish stories".
If you listen to to the "legends" of muskie fishing, most of them have had at least one encounter with a muskie that they are confident would go close to 60" and is well over 50#. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Hmm, so far 4 bites. Maybe the school will come in and they'll really start snappin! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Lens Creep,
I have also "heard" a lot of stories and I believe none of them. While talk is fun, it is also cheap.
Determining the largest possible Muskie is similar to determining the largest Great White shark. While the largest known White Sharks have reached about 23 ft, there have been reports of sightings as large as 30 ft. (I repeat reports, or just talk.) There are fossils that indicate that a pre-histroric shark very similar to the Great White may have approached 50 ft or more. Do these 50 ft giants still exist? Do +25 ft Great Whites exist? Maybe, but probably not. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
Now, imagine having one of those monsters swim up behind your Muskie bait. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8835
| The real answer:
It all depends on who you ask! |
|
| |
|
| 108lbs? How can anyone straight faced say something is almost twice as big as anything ever know and to exist? I think there's also mention of a 162lb musky too, we all need a bigger boats!
Seriously, all of our scientific and biological research indicates that these fish top out at around 60 pounds. This cannot be 100% disproven, but then again, how could you disprove something like that. The onus of proof that something exists falls on the shoulders of the people who make these these wild claims. Kind of like Bigfoot dude, we got the footprints, video and eyewitnesses, heck, that's even more evidence than a 70 pound musky is out there! |
|
| |
|
| It's interesting that in the 80s we all thought that there were about (guess) 30 60lbers and 70lbs obtainable. Now with Spray and Johnson gone I think we are down to 2 60s, and O'Brian's is pretty suspicious IMHO. When the dust settles we could be down to William's 61?lber. |
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep - 6/21/2010 11:24 AM
There's no way to know how big the largest one ever was. I heard the DNR netted a 108 pound fish once, although I can't recall where.
I thought Ramsell book debunked the 108 myth
Funky Chicken |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | At the MI Symposium in Indiana, Dr.Casselman said he felt a 70# fish could come from the St. Lawrence. Since he's the best of the best up that way, I'll go with his appraisal.
'Ontario waters hold some of the world's largest muskie. The provincial record is a 65-pound (29.5-kg) giant taken by Ken O'Brien of Toronto from Georgian Bay's Blackstone Harbour. It was only a few pounds smaller than the 67.5-pound (30.61 kg) world record from Wisconsin. Will Ontario produce an even larger fish?
Dr. John Casselman, a Ministry of Natural Resources researcher and a world authority on pike and muskie, says it's probable. His data show the waters that have the best chance of producing the next record. Casselman ages pike and muskie and determines their growth rate by examining cleithrums, bony structures just behind their gill-plates. There are several different types of muskie waters in the province, in which ultimate maximum fish size differs appreciably. Using his age and growth techniques, Casselman can predict the approximate maximum size for most of Ontario's muskie waters.
He suggests the next world record will be a female, at least 30 and perhaps 35 years of age, about 60 inches in length (152.4 cm), and will come from one of seven Ontario waters: the St. Lawrence River; Lake of the Woods; Wabigoon Lake; Eagle Lake; Lac Seul; Georgian Bay; or the Ottawa River. '
http://207.5.76.16/articles/default.cfm?ID=377 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I didn't say I believed the story of the 108lb fish, I was just stating it was out there and it looks like a few others here are aware of that story. There are other stories as well regarding fish that were speared, netted or found dead that may have been past the 70lb mark and had they been caught legitimately would have been declared the world record. That's why I don't feel that the current world record (whatever it is) was the largest muskie that has ever existed. I bet there have been and are 75lb fish out there somewhere. They may just be in areas fishermen aren't targetting, such as very deep water or lakes people can't get to. Fish records are broken every year, so how can someone say the current record for any fish species is as big as that species can ever get. That makes absolutely no sense, which was the point I was trying to make earlier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | But that is still just an educated guess, maybe some wishful thinking and perhaps just a touch of Ontario promotion?  Dr. Casselman is an expert, but there are also a lot of experts who believe Big Foot exists and how many Big Foots have been found?
Even if a 70 lb Muskie exists, someone will have to find it, get it to eat, land it, and then get it to a certified scale before it dries out and loses to much weight. The odds of that happening are not very high.
The way I look at it, Muskies have been around a long time, people have been fishing for them for quite a while and there still are no 70 lb Muskies to show for it. Not caught, not washed up on shore, not hit by a boat, not killed when blasting the St. Lawrence Seaway, not at all. There is still no proof that a 70 lb Muskie ever existed. None. Zip. Nodda.
A new WR is a nice thought and fun to think and talk about. Its always fun to dream though and who knows, maybe someday when one of us least expects it, a WR will jump right in the boat with us.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dr. Casselman is a scientist, and isn't much interested in fairy tales. He's talking about upper confidence limits, and isn't speculating when or IF one will be caught. There's no other science to refer to I can locate, so there...
It is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| "There is still no proof that a 70 lb Muskie ever existed. None. Zip. Nodda." Exactly. But does that prove that the current record was the largest muskie that has ever swam? Nope. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Herb_b - 6/21/2010 5:30 PM
But that is still just an educated guess, maybe some wishful thinking and perhaps just a touch of Ontario promotion? Dr. Casselman is an expert, but there are also a lot of experts who believe Big Foot exists and how many Big Foots have been found?
With some 465 samples used to make his determinations, I'll say Dr. Casselman's "educated guess" is quite educated. His has much more merit than anyone else's, in my opinion. As for the Ontario promotion part, if you truly believe MN or WI or wherever has the potential to kick out world record class fish, then start sending cleithrums to Dr. Casselman. Muskies Canada has helped greatly in providing the cleithrum, with apparently fewer samples coming from the States. He can't make a science-based conclusion without the evidence, and the evidence points strongly to the giants that roam the St. Lawrence. You can remove them from dead fish or talk to your local taxidermist (http://projectnoblebeast.blogspot.com/2009/10/cleithrum-removal.html; http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02...).
For those interested, here's the abstract to Dr. Casselman's paper that discusses ultimate length: http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675(1999)019%3C0271:GAULOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2 |
|
| |
|
| Yeah I definitely agree that musky have been around for a longggg time. I don't agree with the fact that people have been fishing for them more than a tiny percentage of that time. Of that tiny percentage of time, it is even a smaller portion that people have been measuring and keeping records of the fish caught.
Think about it, we've probably explored between 3-5% of the worlds oceans. Granted that lakes don't make up even a fraction of the water that oceans do, and I don't have an exact percntage, there is still an enormous amount of water that has never been examined. I don't know how people can think that there might not be a 70 or 80 lb musky in these waters.
As people have said these fish probably inhabit water that few humans will ever have access too. Whose to say there are not giant fish that follow schools of trout or salmon around in the great lakes? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 433
Location: Cedarburg, Wisconsin | Certainly Wisconsin can grow a new world record. The waters of Green Bay have just recently been stocked and should be near their maximum size potential right now. Everything I've ever read about fish indicates that the first few generations of a relatively newly stocked water have almost an unlimited growth potential compared to waters where the population is old and established. Now all someone needs to do is be in the right place at the right time and be lucky beyond belief.
Scientific evaluation of known samples will predict with certainty the limits of the average known fish. It cannot predict the freaks that can occur in any water at any time. All it takes is one genetic freak to be created and left alone long enough and the world record will fall, just a matter of time. Scientific results are usually based on the 96% certainty principle, meaning the data must yield results that can be repeated 96 times out of 100 to be valid. So that leaves 4% of the time something unexpected can happen. Not much of a chance for the creation of a super fish, but enough to allow it to happen. It's better odds than winning the lottery.
Just as certain is the fact that as soon as the next record is caught it will also be discredited. Someone will know something that will disprove the catch. Someone will not like the picture. Someone else will know a friend who talked to a person that had a brother that saw the fish and it wasn't that big. Somebody will say it was bought or that it was found floating in the lake and not caught with a rod and reel. Remember, muskies can't get that big because I haven't caught one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| You know, I have tried to listen and read carefully to the stuff Tom Gelb has said and written about big fish. One of the things I have taken note of is his idea that when a really big fish is caught, it is the VERY first time it was EVER caught. If that's true, and you pair that fact with the fact that very few guys (probably nobody) fully employs the techniques that Tom uses to catch the monsters that he catches, well...then I believe there (just might) could be a 70 pounder somewhere. Unfortunately, they probably can't get that big, and we are all chasing after a record that does not deserve to be where it is listed. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that one of Tom's fish is the real record. Marty Forman |
|
| |
|
| As impressive as the man and his accomplishments are, I don't know that Tom Gelb's fish is big enough to be the WR. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Martin Williamson "captured" the real WR on the last day of the season with about 5lbs of previous meals still in its stomach. While you guys speculate about the possibility of 70lbs, you should also be open to the very real possibility that the maximum empty weight that has been caught so far is between 55-60lbs. Although I greatly respect Dr. Casselman's opinion, I would venture to guess that he included the current records as part of his database. After all Steve, why wouldn't he? IMHO, I don't think men of science should be speculating, even with 96% accuracy. It's also my understanding that Dr. Cassleman's opinion is that the current records should be left alone. With all due respect, this position seems curious for a man of science. it's also my understanding that he thinks the currently recognized WRs are "laughable".
Interesting subject!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I don't for one second believe in the WI records, but to assume that a 70 lb fish hasn't or doesn't exist because those are false really doesn't make any sense.
Dr. Casselman's data is based on known fish, not records that he didn't have a chance to examine. His findings are widely accepted among the world's top fisheries biologists and to compare his opinion to that of someone who believes in bigfoot shows a total lack of understanding of science.
If men of science didn't "speculate" using statistics and probabilities then science wouldn't exist.
It makes no sense not to assume that the maximum size a muskie can reach isn't going to be at least somewhat significantly greater than what we have seen in the past,which is right around 60 lbs. With several fish reaching that mark how can anyone think that 70 lbs is unobtainable?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | John,
I, for one, would love to see a +70 lb Muskie caught, verified, and be made the new world record. And I would be very happy if you caught that fish. But not Steve W. He fishes way to much.
I am not one to believe in something until it happens or at least there is evidence that it could. And there is absolutely no evidence that 70 lb Muskies exist today, ever have, or ever will. There is nothing but speculation that would ever indicate that is possible.
So, put me down as one who does not believe 70 lb Muskies are attainable. However, I hope that a 70 lb Muskie does get caught some day. I truly do. But I just don't believe it will ever happen. For me there is "hope", but no "belief" - if that makes sense?
Now, what would be really funny is if, having publicly stated that, the Good Lord in heaven looked down and allowed me to catch the first 70 lb Muskie. (After all, that is what it would take for me to catch a fish like that.) I would never live it down.
Good luck all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Although I greatly respect Dr. Casselman's opinion, I would venture to guess that he included the current records as part of his database. After all Steve, why wouldn't he? '
The current World record is from Hayward. I don't see that water listed in his WR water bodies. |
|
| |
|
| John, I think part of our understanding is that 70lbs has been attainable because of the bogus records of yesteryear. Without a doubt 70lbs has been ingrained into our beliefs ever since we could cast a bucktail and it's hard to let go of that number, at least it is for me anyway. With that said, let's assume (right or wrong) that Williamson's fish had about 5 pounds of forage in its stomach, thereby making the empty weight 56lbs. Seems reasonable that the handful of other legitimate super fish like his (over 55lbs) had something in their stomach too. Therefore, it seems just as likely to me that they top out at about 55 empty and the magical 70lb mark is unobtainable without a full stomach and loaded with spawn like Williamson.
BTW, I'm of the opinion that about 10lbs was added to O'Brien's fish based on what Larry Ramsell found when he inspected the fish, 54" - 56lbs. |
|
| |
|
| Steve, point taken but I would be curious to know if those fish are included in his database and not in his lakes that he feels have the best potential. He was obviously aware of them when he was compiling the database and probably a lot depends on when he was compiling it. As I recall this was prior to the symposium in 05 and there was no proof that the WRs were so bad. |
|
| |
|
| O'Brien's fish supposedly measured 58" total length with a fork length of 56.5". How could Larry Ramsell possibly have gotten a total length measurement of 54" which is SHORTER than the fork length measurement originally reported? Larry's measurement of 54" indicates a fork length of only 52.5". How could a muskie with a fork length of 52.5" possibly have a total length of 58"?
Likewise, how could Larry have weighed the fish at 56 lbs (confirmed by two separate scales) when the fish was originally reported to weigh 65 lbs?
Here we have the canadian record losing 4" in length and 9 lbs. in weight when checked by one of the worlds most respected authorities on muskies. I'd like to hear a logical explanation for all of this?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Dr. Casselman's studies used fish that he could personally inspect.
All this speculation of fish what fish weighed with "empty" stomaches, etc. That is meaningless as fish don't go completely empty like a gas tank in a car and then "fill up". They have a fairly constant weight and don't wait to eat until they are "empty".
Art Barefoot's 59" fish weighed 59 lbs. in June after it had spawned. That fish was not near the end of it's life as determined by age models and was not a "freak", meaning had no sex organs or some other deformity that made it grow to an unusual size.
For those of of you that think muskies can only get as big as the one's we've caught, why? That makes no sense at all.
If several muskies can obtain a size of 60 lbs., than what logical reason would there be to say that they can't get bigger than that?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | His confidence limit data was compiled from his study of the cleithrums, I believe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Now they're snappin! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 581
| First off, I don't know or really care too much whether muskies can get to 70lbs or not. I'm personally content to catch a 45-50lber.
When we are talking about water systems as large as Georgian Bay, the St. Lawrence, Lake of the Woods, etc., I don't think it's completely logical to assume that the largest of large fish swimming in those waters have been caught. In other words, to presume that a 70# fish doesn't exist solely on the basis that a 70# fish hasn't been officially caught and weighed, involves just as much speculation and conjecture as the opposing viewpoint. You're assuming that an angler was lucky enough to stumble into the biggest fish in a 1 million acre lake. That's quite a leap of faith.
On the other hand, the world's foremost scientist and researcher on the topic of big muskies, Dr. Casselman, thinks that existence of fish of this size is "probable", i.e., it's more likely than not.
Obviously no one knows for certain. But since we have verifiable examples of captured fish weighing into the 60's, and we have a reputed scientist (whose life work includes researching the topic of growth and maximum size) saying that the existence of a 70lb fish is "probable", I don't see what's so hard to believe.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | One thing is for certain - none of us knows for sure if a +70 lb Muskie exists or not. And our belief system does not really affect whether or not a WR Muskie exists either. Either it does or it doesn't. Not?
Either way its always fun to think about catching a giant Muskie every time we get on the water. Isn't it?
Edited by Herb_b 6/22/2010 4:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Every time I pull a rare stint at a show booth, someone tells me an incredible story of a seven or eight foot muskie.
Straight up- After filming these fish underwater for quite a few years now, always in The Great lakes system,( where the biggest supposedly live) and seeing a lot of fish, I don't think I've seen one over five. I see a lot of 2-1/2 to 3-1/2. You see a few around four feet. I think I've only seen three fish that I would say were over four and a half feet long. That's after hundreds of dives going back to 1997.
Now, just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But i can tell you this, a four and a half is a rare fish indeed. I would guess the very top is around 5. Call me a doubter, but I'd have to see bigger to believe it.
Good luck on the water- Jim |
|
| |
|
| That's a pretty sobering testimonial! It pretty much sums up our "slim to none" chances on even catching a 60-60 from some of the worlds best waters. From my seat here, I think you can remove the "slim" portion from my above statement for virtually all of our inland lakes due to pollution, fishing pressure, strain, ect.
If we are to learn anything from our musky history, it's that people tend to exaggerate, and that virtually all of the fish over 60lbs were nothing more than 40lb lies. I would love to hold onto the dream of a 70lber too, but I'm afraid I fall into the same category of, please show me one.
I suspect plotting a 70lber on a bell curve would help put things into perspective. |
|
| |
|
| No offense to the guy going under water but don't you think that something weird in the setting, meaning you underwater, might cause a large fish to stay away. It got big for a reason |
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
Your statement, "... fish don't go completely empty like a gas tank in a car and then "fill up". They have a fairly constant weight and don't wait to eat until they are "empty"."
Fish certainly do go completely empty as any taxidermist or anyone that has opened up a lot of fish will tell you. The weight that is fairly constant is their "empty" weight.
Where did you get the idea that SEVERAL muskies have obtained 60 lbs.? There has NEVER been a muskie caught, or found dead that was confirmed to weigh 60 lbs. with an empty stomach.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 6/23/2010 10:11 AM
No offense to the guy going under water but don't you think that something weird in the setting, meaning you underwater, might cause a large fish to stay away. It got big for a reason
Saying that some proverbial giant fish is staying away from the diver for whatever reason while these other (stupid?) fish do not is pretty absurd. The bottom line on how they "got big for a reason" is not that they are more wary or extra smart, it's that they have the right genes and eat more. Case in point is that the biggest fish in a pond or aquarium are the more aggressive eaters. Basically just the opposite of being wary. it would make more sense to just say that they do not exist, or are so rare that the diver just hasn't seen one yet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | The stomach may not have contents in it, but the fish has absorbed that weight or it's in the intestines.
A fish doesn't eat a 5 lb sucker, and then not eat again until it's lost 5 lbs.
The weight of fish is fairly constant, just like us. When they start eating more frequently they start to gain weight.
Never said anything about whether or not fish had contents in stomach that weighed 60 lbs. I said there have been several fish around 60 lbs., so IMHO the maximum size of a muskie should be well over that.
Edited by john skarie 6/23/2010 12:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i would imagine then that it would stand to reason that the big fish that are avoiding divers are losing weight by the extra exercise it takes to run away and hide ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Hmmm. I think there are lots of factors in determining how heavy a Muskie can get. For instance, I have noticed that the Muskies are much fatter on Lake Minnetonka as one gets closer to Maynards and thinner as one goes away. They get fatter again near Lord Fletchers, but, once again, get thinner as one goes away.
Maybe its all that grease in the air from cooking those hamburgers the two restuarants serve? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Wow you guys never get enough I just go back to Michigans old record from Thornapple Lake. 51 inches /28 inch girth and 49 pounds. She was a young fish and had many years of growth left. If you use a percentage based formula and enlarge her to 60 inches she is well over 70 pounds. No one will ever convince me that there are not fish of 60 pounds empty roaming the great lakes and St. Lawrence. For me stomach contents are and always will be the deciding factor in whether or not a fish reaches a bonified 70 pounds. But anything is possible with these fish. The Green bay fish, McNairs fish, Williamsons, Obriens and many others that have reached 50 to 60 pounds show us that these fish can get big.
I have read here before that a fish can not exceed half its length in girth and watched that theory blown out of the water 5 times. Michigans old record of 28 girth and 51 length are living proof or dead proof that Muskies can exceed half of their length in girth.. Gentleman, this is why they are records. They are supposed to be next to impossible to achieve. I cant speculate on the Spray fish, the Johnson fisah or the Obrien fish as I was not standing there when they were measured and weighed and none of you were either. Larry Ramsell told me in Chicago that he thought Obriens fish should be the record. Well, he nodded when I asked him if it should be the record. 65 pounds to 70 pounds is not that much of a difference in my opinion. It Proven that they have reached lengths of over 60 inches. if one grows like the Michigan fish that I have presented then its over 70 pounds. Miles of waters never fished in Georgian bay. Dangerous rocks and wrecked boats , Its like Pirates story. ARG YE MATES SHE LIVES OUT PAST THEM THAR ROCKS. She eats full grown Salmon and terrorizes trout fishermen. I love it!!!! I will stand and applaude the day 70 pounds is reached and verified. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
| You can rest assured there are are still giants here on the Big Chip. Too many trustworthy anglers have had them on or seen them for it not to be true. Even Tony Burmek had one on for 2 hours that he estimated to be #80. There is even hard supporting evidence with these huge jawbones if you don't want to believe in Louie's World Record. I think the ancestors of those super fish have just moved off structure due to fishing pressure and boat traffic, one day soon a lucky angler will shock the world. |
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
A fish doesn't eat a 5 lb. sucker and then weigh the same as before it ate the sucker. The fish will GAIN 5 lbs immediately after consuming the meal. This weight gain will then diminish as the sucker is being digested.
Keep in mind that the 5 lb. sucker will NOT be converted into a 5 lb. weight gain AFTER it is digested. The weight of the fish "empty" is maintained by the fish consuming an adequate amount of food.
I repeat, there has NEVER been a muske that was confirmed to weigh 60 lbs. with an empty stomach therefore it would seem highly unlikely one could ever weigh much more than that.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Now here is some math science for you. I took the Michigan old record which was a young fish . Her measurements were 51 by 28. First I grew her by 10% she was now 56.1x30.8 and by Muskies inc formula would weigh 66.52 pounds.
11% puts her at 56.61 x 31.08 and 68.35 pounds.
13% she goes 57.63 x 31.64 and weighs in at 72.11599206 pounds.
Now this is science. I used a known fish which was young when killed and grew her only 13% .
This fish is considered by many to be freak because her girth was so huge in comparison to her length. If she grew proportionately just 12% she would make 70 pounds.
But then again, formulas. Who can trust them? Take her weight of 49.75 pounds and increase it by 13% and she only weighs in at 56.22 . So does one trust the girth and the formula or the known weight and the 13% ha ha ha ha . I love this stuff.
Our new record is more the normal fish like Marc and others tout over and over. Average for the species. 55 by 27 and 50 pounds. This fish was 4 inches longer and only beat the thorn fish by less than a pound.
No one is going to convince me that there are not freak 70 pound Muskies in at least 4 places in this world. What really sucks for me is that I dont live anywhere near any of those places.
If I did? I would hang her from my yard arm ha ha ha . Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 6/23/2010 2:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Kingfisher, 13% is a mile and a half! If you don't believe that then please explain why the MI record is 51lbs, MN record is 54lbs, WI record (should be) low 50lbs. Did it ever occurred to you that the these fish you are attaching 13% too are actually the the fish that already have the proverbial 13% already attached? How do you know either fish do not already reached its maximum length? Seriously, and I know you can't be convinced but, between the three states we do not have a single fish over 55lbs, while Canada has only one fish over 60lbs. It boggles my mind that Larry Ramsell would endorse a claimed 65lb-58" fish that he measured himself at 56lb-54". |
|
| |
|
| That is NOT science, it's speculation. You can't just assume that the fish would grow proportionally as it ages or if that particular fish would ever gain much more in length. There have been MANY short, extemely fat, muskies but how about extremely fat muskies of extreme length? Extremely long muskies are very old fish nearing the end of their life span and it would be highly unlikely for them to be carrying an extreme girth.
It's fun to think these fish are capable of reaching 70 lbs. but it's painfully obvious this is just a dream.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Ha Ha Ha , I didnt say they could get that big. I said if one grew proportionately from the size of Michigans old record from Thornapple which was a young fish. 51 by 28 . Just a little longer and the same proportions would be an easy 70 pounds. By formula. Not speculation at all. Simple math. What were the claimed measurements of Dale Mc Nairs fish? By formula I showed a 57.6 by 31.6 would exceed 70 pounds. This is more science then the words you used (I guess) ??? Im not guessing. Im taking a known young fish and growing her by percentage. Its math. Maybe unrealistic but still math. Its my contention that if a 51 inch Musky can attain a 28 inch girth that a 57.6 can attain a 31.6 inch girth thats all. Mike
That formula was dead nuts on the Old Michigan fish at 49 pounds plus. Why would it not work on a bigger one? The old fish was certified 51 by 28 and that flies in the face of everything you have been saying. They do on occasion exceed half of their length in girth and in some cases by a lot. This fish proves to me that a 57 by 31 is very possible. By formula that is a 70 pound fish. Mike |
|
| |
|
| California Musky,
I would have to completely disagree with. Those fish dont become huge by eating a million times a day. They get huge by eating large high protein fish. I seriously doubt these fish are constantly hanging around in the shallows munching on pannies all day. I think that probably are more likely to stay very deep until they're hungry and then come up, eat a large meal, and then go back down.
Why is it crazy to think a fish would be weary of something strange in its enviroment? Isn't a large mature whitetailed deer weary of people? Being weary and cautious is how these animals get big.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest 3 - 6/23/2010 4:13 PM
California Musky,
I would have to completely disagree with. Those fish dont become huge by eating a million times a day. They get huge by eating large high protein fish. I seriously doubt these fish are constantly hanging around in the shallows munching on pannies all day. I think that probably are more likely to stay very deep until they're hungry and then come up, eat a large meal, and then go back down.
Why is it crazy to think a fish would be weary of something strange in its enviroment? Isn't a large mature whitetailed deer weary of people? Being weary and cautious is how these animals get big.
Ever been diving? The fish are hardly weary and cautious. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Weary - mental fatigue ...
didn't think fish had brains? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 6/23/2010 4:23 PM
Weary - mental fatigue ...
didn't think fish had brains?
This thread, and many others, makes me weary. |
|
| |
|
| http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1084
We see, and get close to big fish. Getting to within a foot of these things (sometimes) was a thing that had to be learned by trial and error. Even if this super fish was cautious, I think I would see her at a six foot distance. Or, maybe I just am not where she lives.
A musky is average as far as approachability. Each individual fish has it's own attitude. I find the bigger they get, the less they care about us on average.
In the St Lawrence, big fish may live very deep. In lakes, however, I would doubt a giant fish would use really deep water frequently. The cool water below the thermocline might slow metabolism. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I'd have expected this thread in December or January but isn't the muskie fishing season open about everywhere now? And to somewhat disagree with the poster that says a 4 and a half footer is extremely rare, a close relative of mine has put 3 in the boat that size in the past 12-13 months. I've seen quite a few 56 inch fish in the past few years being caught from many Minnesota and Canadian waters. (Not so much in WI, Sorry). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Being weary and cautious is how these animals get big. '
Nope.
Weary, maybe. Wary, no. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 6/21/2010 11:05 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say there is no dispute on the record fish from Hayward, based on sound research, they are 100% phony. .
Spray's fish was not a phony. There isn't enough evidence to disprove it. No matter who you talk to, someone is going to try to dispute it. People have done research to dispute it, but the evidence wouldn't hold a candle.
I honestly believe that Spray's is legitimate because there is not enough evidence to disprove it. The only thing Louie lied about was catching it off of Fleming's Bar when he caught it off of Church Island on the Chippewa Flowage. A few people saw him fighting the the fish and others saw it afterwards.
Hugh Lackley the taxidermist who mounted it had never met Louie before in his life until he brought the musky in the next day. Lackley said after he skinned the fish, he did a thourough examination of it and its insides and there was now lead or rocks or sand in it to make it weigh more. Nothing.
The only thing I've heard about Cal Johnson's fish is that it looked like was caught from another lake and not Lac Court Oreilles like he and his son and their friend said it was. Apparently the fish caught from LCO are barred and this was plain green. Has anyone ever thought that there could've been a few muskies that wasn't like the rest of them in the lake. Brings us back to the whole genetics thing.
Spray's is legitimate and I know this because I have researched it. |
|
| |
|
| Hiya -
Dr. Casselman's Ultimate Size at Age study is one of the most comprehensive ever done on muskie growth. Dr. Casselman is also one of the most respected biologists there is when it comes to muskie research.
I think if you suggested to them that his research held some kind of Ontario bias, most of the biologists I know (and I know quite a few) would laugh at you. A couple may take a swing at you
If you want to argue that his research is suspect because it doesn't agree with what a bunch of fishermen on the internet think...yeah...good luck with that. Let me know how it works out for ya. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Being an engineer and having a great deal of mathematical education, I think it all comes down to statistical analysys. Can something happen that has not been know to occur before? The answer is yes, but the chances are very slim. Based on logic, here are some basic criteria for a new WR to be caught:
1. The fish must exist. Whether or not it does is questionable. Lets say the odds of it existing now or in the near future are 50%.
2. Someone must fish where it lives. It is possible that if the fish exists, it is on a remote lake or in a part of a lake where no one fishes. As some have mentioned, the fish may stay much deeper or in open water when no one actually fishes. Lets say the odds of this are 50%.
3. A fisherperson must make contact with the fish when it is hungry AND must get the fish to eat their bait or lure offering. We all have to agree that the odds of this are very low. I will use 1% for sake of argument. Realistically, it may not be that high.
4. The fisherperson must have sufficent tackle, luck, and skill to land the fish. Odds of this are 50% at best.
5. The fisherperson must then kill the fish. How many Muskie fisherpeople might release it just because they have no interest in owning the WR and they would rather let it live? Odds of this seem to be around 50%.
6. The fisherperson must then get the fish to a certified scale before it dries out and loses significant weight. Considering that the fish may be caught in a a remote place, the odds of this seem to be around 50%.
7. The fish must then withstand the many nay-sayers, investigations, and attempts by people from the Hayward, WI area to discredit the fish just so they could keep their supposed WR. So, even if the fish is legit, it may somehow get discredited or just not accepted by one particular organization. Odds of this are 50%.
So, based on my very rough and inexact estimations, the odds of a new WR record Muskie being caught any time soon are (0.50x0.50x0.01x0.50x0.50x0.50x0.50) = 0.00015625 or 0.015625% or 1/6400.
Of course these chances are not exact. But no matter how you size up the chances of each individual criteria, the chances are very low that a +70 lb Muskie will be caught any time soon. Unless, of course, if I catch her tonight on Lake Minnetonka. Yeah, right!
Edited by Herb_b 6/24/2010 8:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I think the original question posed is what is the max size potential, not whether or not an angler would catch a record fish.
Those are completely different subjects.
I can think of several well known muskie anglers that have all lost the biggest fish they every had on. 2 of those accounts are of fish that are in the 60 inch class by anglers who know big fish. J. Bucher and J. Burns. Bucher actually changed his production 7 strand leaders from being crimped to being tied after his mechanical failure on the French River back in the late 90's.
Both fish in Ontario.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
I recall an article in Musky Hunter magazine where a very well known and respected angler claimed to have lost a muskie that supposedly was 12" across the back. Do you believe this claim and if you do, what would you estimate the girth to be on this fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Pointerpride102 - 6/23/2010 4:26 PM
jonnysled - 6/23/2010 4:23 PM
Weary - mental fatigue ...
didn't think fish had brains?
This thread, and many others, makes me weary.
NUKE: Oh she may get wooly, women do get wooly, because of all the stress...
CRASH: Gimme that. I hate people who get the words wrong. It ain’t “woolly”, it’s “weary” and nobody’s got stress, they’re wearing a dress.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | JS,
You are correct in that many people have lost their biggest fish and some of those fish may have been over 60 inches. Criteria number 4 considers exactly that. And based on my own experience with really big Muskies and what others have reported, maybe 50% is way to high for that. Maybe something like 20% or even 10% would be more realistic. For me the odds are probably less than 5% that I would land a fish that large.
Of course, a +60 inch Muskie may still weigh less than 50 lbs. Just because a fish is unusually long doesn't mean it will be unusually heavy too. So, it is very possible that none of those reported lost +60 inch Muskies ever approached WR status and it is possible that none of them would have even weighed over or even approached 60 lbs. It seems one has to catch them to find out. Correct?
Edited by Herb_b 6/24/2010 11:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Ever wonder why all the well-known and respected anglers have lost the biggest fish they ever had on? Wouldn't you think at least one of them would have landed the largest fish they ever encountered?
A well respected angler will not lose his or her respect by delivering a "story" that cannot be disproven. |
|
| |
|
| John, to my knowledge neither of those anglers has caught a 50lb musky so these larger ones they lost were not necessarily 70lbs, or even 60" for that matter.
The whole line of reasoning that supports a 70lber is based on sheer conjecture, whether it's from a well respected biologist (who might have used input from the current records in his database) or fishermen, it is still just that.
The reality of the situation is that the largest musky ever caught was barely 60lbs, maybe we should start with justifying a real 65lber first. After all, this is easily still 10% bigger than the largest one ever captured without stomach contents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | guess 65lbs,
I totally agree.
I think sometimes fish get larger in our minds as time goes on and lost fish are rarely as large as we think. They are just the ones we think about the most.
Nothing wrong with big fish stories though. Sometimes that is all one gets and sometimes we're lucky to get those. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
So the point is that a person is incapable of accurately estimating the size of a "record" class fish if they haven't already caught one?
To most anglers knowledge J Burns hasn't caught a 50 lber, he's never weighed one and keeps the vast majority of his big catches secret.
You can believe who or what you want to. Doesn't matter a bit to me.
I'm not going to argue or speculate about what they saw, I just have faith in some people's opinions.
JS |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 6/24/2010 7:25 AM
MuskyJim:
What color are your rose colored glasses? And what left wing muskie world are you living in? Enjoy your naitivity... And, just what did you research??? Seems you missed a LOT of truth's!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
www.larryramsell.com (where the truth can be found)
Larry,
I don't want to fight with you on this issue, because I respect you as a musky fisherman and historian. I am entitled to my opinion and my beliefs aren't I?
I just can't see how Spray's 1949 fish was a fake. It wasn't full of rocks and sand, people actually witnessed him catching Chin Whisker Charlie (beside Ted Haag and Geo. Quentmeyer). Hugh Lackley didn't tamper with it to make the mount longer.
The only things that are questionable about the fish in my opinion, is Louie claiming he caught it off of Fleming's instead of the Church Island area. The other thing is the Martin motors advertising ad - the fish looks much smaller than it it did in the original photo. As far as the original photo of Louie with Chin Whisker hanging on that oar or whatever it was I think is a represntation of how big the fish actually is. Louie was about 6' and I can clearly see the fish is most definatley 5'2-5'3 as Louie said it was.
I don't by the fact that people make that Louie had someone else catch it or had and indian spear it for him. I know I will never change your opinion on Louie, but its like Don Johnson said in THE OLD MASTERS OF MUSKY HUNTING, which you appear on to, that "LOUIE WAS ONE HELL OF A MUSKY FISHERMAN AND YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM."
(FYI - I am not, never have and and never will be a member of any left wing - whether it is politics or musky fishing worlds. I took great offense to your left wing comment - other than that, I didn't have an issue with your post.)
Happy Fishing,
Musky Jim
Musky Jim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | isn't the current world record just shy of 70 lbs. now? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | JS,
My point is that, yes, they may have overestimated the fish. How can anyone realistically estimate a fish that big when no one is ever lucky enough to see more than one or two in a lifetime? It just isn't possible to "accurately" estimate a fish that big until one puts a measuring stick next to it.
How many times has most everyone hooked at a Muskie thinking it was longer than it was? We've all done it many times.
Musky Jim, Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too? Just curious..... |
|
| |
|
| John Skarie,
Why have you avoided my question? Your statement, "I just have faith in some peoples opinions." Do you have faith that a muskie could actually exist that was 12" across the back and if so, what do you feel the girth would be on such a fish?
I'm not looking for an arguement, just your opinion.
Considering the experience of the fishermen reporting these stories and their equipment, don't you feel that some of these supposed 60+" fish should have been landed? Consider that Ken O'Brien caught the canadian record without even using muskie equipment!
Your opinions on these things would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
| |
|
| Yes, the current world record that is recognized by the National Freshwater Fishing Hall Of Fame is 69lbs 11oz. The International Game Fish Association (IGFA) doesn't recognize fish that were shot to land, so Cal Johnson's 67lb 8oz musky is theirs.
There have been attempts to disqualify the 69lb 11oz fish, but as of right now, the NFWFHF in Hayward recognizes that as both the state and worlds record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | Just a matter of time before a new WR is captured... But it sure as hell ain't commin out of the chip. I'll bet a dollar to your dime on that MJ! Not trying to start anything, I'm just saying no chance in hell IMOP.
Sure hope it's this year, just to put it to bed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 183
Location: Grand Forks ND | Nothing adds weight (or length) to a fish faster than getting off the hook before it's landed. I don't care who you are...it's nothing more than human nature. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
JD;
Wasn't avoiding anything, just really don't have an answer.
I don't know about the reported fish that was 12" across the back. Have no idea who claimed that or if any fish that has ever lived was 12" across the back. I have no way to put that into perspective.
Why some fish don't get landed and some do is part of the draw of fishing. You just never know what's going to happen until it's in the net.
Quite plainly for me there are people I'd believe who say they saw a record class fish (at the very least I'd believe they thought they did), and others that I wouldn't.
Personally I have no reason not to believe that the science and testimonial evidence point in the direction of muskies hitting the 70 lb. mark.
That's probably more than enough posting for me on this topic.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Musky Jim:
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but your post was written as FACT, which of course it isn't. Have you read the Spray section of my newest "Compendium"? If not, it is available free on my website. I think the vast amount of information there should help change your mind about the Spray (bogus) record and correct some of the incorrect information you are trying to put forth as fact...such as other "people actually witnessed him catching Chin Whisker Charlie"...they did not.
As for Hugh Lackey not tampering with the mount, I beg to differ. The WRMA's photogrammetry analysis proves clearly that the mount is much larger than the fresh fish!
And, Louie was 5' 11" tall, not 6'2" as Dettloff originally had him or even 6' as you state. Your analysis of the fish being "definatelely (sp) 5/2-5'3 as Louie said it was"...if considerably wrong! The science of photogrammetry has proven otherwise.
I don't disagree with Don Johnson's opinion about Louie, he just never caught anything near what he claimed (or bought them that big either)!
Sorry to offend you with the "left-wing" comment...it was written "tongue in cheek".
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
| A fish 12" across the back would have a 37.7" girth based on the circumference of a circle being 2*pi*r. Considering that a fish is deeper than wide this would underestimate the true girth. Sounds like a load of bull to me. I'll just have to bonk a new WR to put this to rest... |
|
| |
|
| This is a very interesting topic, I don't know if anyone here has ever fished the Ottawa River. Thee is one guide that I have spoken to, Bill Craig. He has landed two fish over 60 inches and both were released, one was considered the longest catch and release at the time. I am not aware if he still holds that title. I spoke with him at length this past spring and he told me of a fish that in his opinion was easily over the seventy pound mark that one of his clients lost at the boat. Hard too believe I know but this man puts in a number of 40lb plus fish in his boat every year and as I wrote earlier he ha landed some very large muskie. |
|
| |
|
| I have heard that same "story" from Bill many times, on different days with different clients. Man has the worst luck, record fish that clients lose, or broken camera's, dead batteries etc.....I fish the same water as him, see him frequency and take a grain of salt while chatting with him.
Is there a 70# probably, GB or St.Lawrence with out a doubt. It 's obvious, they are the two best places in the world for HUGE muskies...not big....HUGE!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 546
Location: MN | jonnysled - 6/21/2010 11:44 AM
what is going to be the winning powerball lotery number for july 27th?
Ha ha well said. its pretty much up to things we can't control... unless you rig the lottry. |
|
| |
|
| Previously posted on another hread
Allow me to share 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 form this opinion.
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
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 growth 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 cycle 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 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 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 in their life cyle period.
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 it 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 era 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 but maybe not according to Casselman growth chart which indicates some muskies attine 50 inches a young as 15 years of age.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 (Not 60 pounds),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 or willing to bite.
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.
Lac Seul ,Nippising 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.Minimizing out of water experience and handling is the key solution.
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 slightly 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
The intent and purpose of my post was not to give credibility or diss-credit any of the recent captures.
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.
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,many 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 and most importantly spawning.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 and physical make up of fish
The purpose and intent is to give some understanding ,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.
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 in the era of 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
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 exception 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.
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
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.
It is an indicator of true growth potential with limitations
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
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 expectancy.
Keep in mind these fish were sampled through cleithra 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
Science is a continuously evolving learning process which ideas and ideals continuously change through the gathering of data
something to consider
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Have a little case of insomnia last night Marc??
If there is a 70 lber out there, I hope we never find out.
The mystique of not knowing how big that one could be is part of the draw.
JS |
|
| |
|
| What I find interesting is that Ken O'Brien's canadian record was determined to have been over 30 years old and yet was measured by Larry Ramsell at only 54".
Larry also weighed the fish on two different scales and found the weight to be only 56 lbs.
Something definately isn't right here. A 4" discrepancy in length and a nine pound discrepency in weight is ludicrous. There simply isn't a rational explanation for this.
Attaining a length of only 54" at over 30 years of age is also a VERY slow growth rate and hardly a testimonial for the growth potential of Georgian Bay.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | JD,
Georgian Bay has produced other large fish besides the O'Brien fish. It seems the largest Muskies in Georgian Bay, much like many other places, top out in the mid to upper 50 lb class. While it is a little disappointing to learn that O'Brien's fish was not 65 lbs as widely reported, it does help confirm the maximum Muskie size. That is still a very large Muskie in anyones book and maybe all the larger they get.
|
|
| |
|
| Herb_b,
The weight appears to top out in the mid to upper 50 lb. class while the length appears to top out in the mid 50" range in Georgian Bay.
I thought the length of the O'Brien fish of only 54" at over 30 years of age is extremely significant. As we all know, length is a product of age and I haven't heard of a muskie confirmed as being older than this fish.
I would think a muskie living to the ripe old age of over 30 years would attain the maximum possible length the fish is capable of acheiving in these waters.
As far as I'm concerned, my "upper confidence limit" for Georgian Bay is a weight of possibly 60 lbs. with stomach contents and a length in the mid 50" bracket. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| A few years ago a DNR employee who's in my Muskies Inc. Chapter found a floater that was 50-52 inches. He cut out the jawbone and tested it and it was either 12 or 15 years old, I can't recall for sure. I wouldn't assume a 50 inch fish to automatically be 25-30 years old though as some seem to think. I know they tested a Bass in New York state a while back that was 24 years old and weighed less than 7lbs. That fish could hit that weight in just a few years in warmer water with a good food source available. I think it's always going to be an unknown as far as the largest muskie. For example, say you catch a 60 incher out of LOTW with a huge girth that could be a possible world record. How many muskies are in LOTW and what are the odds that you caught the single largest one swimming there? I suspect you'd win multiple Powerball jackpots before accomplishing that feat. Anyway, I don't think they ever actually determined how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop after all these years, so I don't think we'll solve this mystery here either. Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep - 6/25/2010 4:57 PM
A few years ago a DNR employee who's in my Muskies Inc. Chapter found a floater that was 50-52 inches. He cut out the jawbone and tested it and it was either 12 or 15 years old, I can't recall for sure. I wouldn't assume a 50 inch fish to automatically be 25-30 years old though as some seem to think. I know they tested a Bass in New York state a while back that was 24 years old and weighed less than 7lbs. That fish could hit that weight in just a few years in warmer water with a good food source available. I think it's always going to be an unknown as far as the largest muskie. For example, say you catch a 60 incher out of LOTW with a huge girth that could be a possible world record. How many muskies are in LOTW and what are the odds that you caught the single largest one swimming there? I suspect you'd win multiple Powerball jackpots before accomplishing that feat. Anyway, I don't think they ever actually determined how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop after all these years, so I don't think we'll solve this mystery here either. Good fishing. :)
As I recall the Williams fish was 15 years old.
http://www.muskie-fishing.ca/world_record_muskellunge.asp
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 169
Location: Houlton, WI | as big as you want them to be |
|
| |
|
| >>>jonnysled - 6/21/2010 11:44 AM
what is going to be the winning powerball lotery number for july 27th?
Ha ha well said. its pretty much up to things we can't control... unless you rig the lottry.>>>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm--hmm. Just like how big a Musky might get is. (Unless you rig the mount--I mean fish; whatever.) Besides, the more interesting (yet, totally uninteresting) question is, "How long can a thread like this get???" Whoops! Forgot to sign in. Makes me just another guest with another dumb opinion. |
|
| |
|
| What has to be considered is that a rapid growth rate such as the Williamson fish had isn't associated with a long lifespan. This fish was likely near the end of it's life at only 17 years of age. It's fun to think a muskie somewhere will have both a very rapid growth rate throughout it's life as well as a very long lifespan but from what is known this isn't very realistic.
|
|
| |
|
| What has to be considered is that a rapid growth rate such as the Williamson fish had isn't associated with a long lifespan. This fish was likely near the end of it's life at only 17 years of age. It's fun to think a muskie somewhere will have both a very rapid growth rate throughout it's life as well as a very long lifespan but from what is known this isn't very realistic.
|
|
| |
|
| No one is saying much about Robert Malo's fish, isn't that one unofficially accepted as a 70lbs musky? |
|
| |
|
| JS,no just cut and paste from old post
Yes muskies can attain 50 inches at 12 to 15 years old but rapid growth leads to short lifes span
Regular growth which generally is in areas /or parallel where life's span are maximized
JS ,I just look at what animals cold blooded or warm blooded realities are
I leave chasing the white elephant for others,quite content catching/boating what we do |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'd be pretty content with what visits your boat as well Marc.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 581
| Before O'Brien's fish, wasn't the Ontario record a 60lb+ muskie from Eagle Lake? For some reason, I thought that I read somewhere that Eagle Lake had 2 documented 60lb+ muskies. Is that right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | Yes, 61-9 LB. Eagle Lake ON., --- 61-8 lb Eagle Lake ON. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Well , Ill say it again. The 51 by 28 from Thornapple lake in Michigan proves beyond any doubt that a Musky can and they do achieve girths over half of thier length. If a 51 inch musky under 20 years of age can reach 28 at the girth and 50 pounds(49.8) then a 57 or 58 inch Musky can reach 31 inches in girth and weigh 70 pounds. The Williamson fish sounds like just such a brute. 17 years old and over 60 pounds.
When I grew the michigan fish I was not saying that that fish could have grown 13% bigger. I was saying that if a 51 can have a 28 inch girth that a 57 or 58 could go 31 or even 32 inches at girth. The Muskies inc formula was dead nuts on the old Michigan record so Why would it not be as acurate on a bigger one. Mike |
|
| |
|
| Matt, those 2 Eagle Lake fish were "documented" the same way as Spray & Johnson were in 1949. I think they were both caught from the same camp during the era of big prizes for new records too, they got cash prizes (ect) for the biggest of the year and a car if you broke the record. |
|
| |
|
| Once again, just because a 51 inch muskie can acheive a girth over half it's length does NOT guarantee a muskie of 57 or 58 inches is capable of doing the same. The older, longer fish are nearing the end of their lifespan and their weight is normally deteriorating.
The Williamson fish was NOT old, and was NOT 57 or 58 inches. Muskies with a rapid growth rate such as this fish normally die before reaching these lengths.
The Muskies Inc. formula would probably be dead nuts on if such a fish existed. However, don't fool yourself into thinking these examples of younger muskies acheiving girths of over half their length PROVE that older, longer muskies can do the same.
|
|
| |
|
| 1939 John J. Coleman 60-8 31.5" x 58.5"
1940 Edward Walden 61-9 31" x 59"
Both of these fish have reported girths of well over half of their length which is obviously not true. If this were true they would appear strikingly similar to Tom Gelb's recent catch.
The photos of these fish also have the fish well out in front of the anglers distorting their apparent length. I feel these fish are about 8% shorter than what they appear. |
|
| |
|
| here is a 53x29
http://www.niagarasportfishing.ca/Portals/0/Musky/Roger_Beauregard_... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| JD - 6/28/2010 10:55 AM
The older, longer fish are nearing the end of their lifespan and their weight is normally deteriorating.
The Williamson fish was NOT old, and was NOT 57 or 58 inches. Muskies with a rapid growth rate such as this fish normally die before reaching these lengths.
You are really stating a lot of conjecture here. I haven't seen any facts to back this up. It would probably be best not to make such declaritive statements when dealing with theory, though you might respect their source. I am of the opinion that southern fish die young(and research bears out that they seem to), because they don't have a dormant period.
I don't think anyone has come up with much as to why northern fish that grow fast, would neccessarily die young(and they do exhibit fast growth in the north, and it is an unequal progress in a population). And regardless of what the general population is doing, we are obviously talking about the odd individual, when considering a record, not the norm, so claiming this and that about the general population probably does not relate to the consequences of a record fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | pepsiboy - 6/28/2010 1:54 PM
here is a 53x29
http://www.niagarasportfishing.ca/Portals/0/Musky/Roger_Beauregard_...
There you go ha ha ha , lets see some more pics of fish that defy the normal. They are there and they are caught and released and then torn apart by the guys who dont believe because they have not caught one. 53 by 29 awesome !!! . Must be a lie right? It could only have had a 26.5 inch girth right? So we now have a 51 by 28 and a 53 by 29 someone please post a 56 by 30. They do get this big and it happens more than anyone here is willing to admit. So now we have two examples of fish that had girths of up to 3 inches over half of their length and these fish were caught on hook and line. So much for the ( I guess theory ) . Mike
55.71 pounds for the 53 by 29 by muskies inc formula Edited by Kingfisher 6/28/2010 2:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
| When did I say mid fifty or shorter fish cannot acheive girths that are OVER half of their length? There have been a number of fish killed that CONFIRMED this was true.
Posting pictures of muskies that are CLAIMED to have girths of over half their length is meaningless. Please inform me of a 57" or larger muskie that was killed and the measurements CONFIRMED before you make statements such as, "They do get this big and it happens more than anyone here is willing to admit."
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Please inform me of any fish 57" or over that was ever CONFIRMED as being a "young" fish?
It seems as though you are trying to defend the Spray and Johnson records that obviously don't possess girths that are over half of their lengths. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I can post a picture of a guaranteed 49x26 if that does anything for anyone? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| JD - 6/28/2010 3:56 PM
firstsixfeet,
Please inform me of any fish 57" or over that was ever CONFIRMED as being a "young" fish?
It seems as though you are trying to defend the Spray and Johnson records that obviously don't possess girths that are over half of their lengths. Well, lets look at some of your quotes, "What I find interesting is that Ken O'Brien's canadian record was determined to have been over 30 years old and yet was measured by Larry Ramsell at only 54".
Attaining a length of only 54" at over 30 years of age is also a VERY slow growth rate and hardly a testimonial for the growth potential of Georgian Bay. 30 years of age, and obviously in very good condition, extremely heavy for the length, but not indicative of the species length topped out, nor it's individual potential lifespan.
"I thought the length of the O'Brien fish of only 54" at over 30 years of age is extremely significant. As we all know, length is a product of age and I haven't heard of a muskie confirmed as being older than this fish.
I would think a muskie living to the ripe old age of over 30 years would attain the maximum possible length the fish is capable of acheiving in these waters.
As far as I'm concerned, my "upper confidence limit" for Georgian Bay is a weight of possibly 60 lbs. with stomach contents and a length in the mid 50" bracket. | |
What has to be considered is that a rapid growth rate such as the Williamson fish had isn't associated with a long lifespan. This fish was likely near the end of it's life at only 17 years of age. How do you determine that this fish is near the end of its life, when you have an example of a fish that has existed 30 years, and is evidently quite fit in an evolutionary kind of way, and heavy? All you need is to find the fish that has a genetic upper limit of length that carries this same fitness and you evidently have your record contender.
Once again, just because a 51 inch muskie can acheive a girth over half it's length does NOT guarantee a muskie of 57 or 58 inches is capable of doing the same. The older, longer fish are nearing the end of their lifespan and their weight is normally deteriorating.
The Williamson fish was NOT old, and was NOT 57 or 58 inches. Muskies with a rapid growth rate such as this fish normally die before reaching these lengths. Wait! How can this be?? How can one fish be fit and prime at the age of 30, and another near death at 17. How can a fish near the end of its lifespan be YOUNG??? I would think the end of its lifespan would denote old age? Seems like if a fish can be big and prime and fit at 30 heading toward an unknown maximum life span, then that fish, at 17 would have only been a halfling. So put a 58-62 inch maximum length genetic fish into that potential age slot and it becomes interesting indeed. While these arguments are time passers, you really can't pull things out of your, uhm... imagination, and claim them as fact. We can argue all day, but the population norm is not ever going to be the record fish, nor are the top 10 % going to be that record fish. You are talking about an abnormal set of genetics and prime healthy living conditions. It is hard to make a point about the abnormal by basing it on the norm, and you can't just pick and choose your fantasy reality to fit whatever argument you are trying to make at the time.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | JD - 6/28/2010 4:43 PM
When did I say mid fifty or shorter fish cannot acheive girths that are OVER half of their length? There have been a number of fish killed that CONFIRMED this was true.
Posting pictures of muskies that are CLAIMED to have girths of over half their length is meaningless. Please inform me of a 57" or larger muskie that was killed and the measurements CONFIRMED before you make statements such as, "They do get this big and it happens more than anyone here is willing to admit."
I dont even know that I was addressing you in particular. Other in past arguments about this subject seem to think that Muskies cant achieve more then half of thier length in Girth. What stated is true. It happens all the time. It happens much more then the people sitting on top of this industry want to admit. Catch and release fishermen have been releasing fish of world record size for many years now. They are simply discredited and called liars every time one steps up.
I got a good one for you. Fact and this is a fact. The so called world record group claims all the old fish are faked. In fact almost every claim at a fish over 60 pounds has been called a liar and there are over 20 men who have claimed this record and yet ? not one is held credible. Sour apples? I think so. What were the claimed measurements on Dale McNairs fish? What did Dale and Sal say this fish measured out at? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I got a good one for you. Fact and this is a fact. The so called world record group claims all the old fish are faked. In fact almost every claim at a fish over 60 pounds has been called a liar and there are over 20 men who have claimed this record and yet ? not one is held credible. Sour apples? I think so'
I don't have the time or patience to get the facts listed on the actions by the WRMA to date AGAIN here, Kingfisher, but before you accuse, you need to have your stuff straight. The WRMA has questioned/commissioned study on two fish, and that's it. And both of those were horse hockey.
The goal isn't to 'disprove', it's to study the fish and have the results prove it out either way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | 57 by 33 or 77 pounds by formula. Even if Dale was off by an inch he still has a 72 pound fish and if he was off by two inches he had a 68 pound fish. I did not follow this when it was hot. Was Dale called a Liar? Was he discredited by Jealous competitors?
Now here is a case where a possible 70 pound fish was caught and released. This fish was huge and again it flies in the face of what has been argued here by people who dont think they can get this big. It seems anyone who even tries to put a fish forward gets slammed by jealous &^%$heads who by using so called scientific methods can disprove them all. Well I for one am not going to be fooled by these sour people who are just Jealous of the accomplishments of others. The fact is they cant all be liars. Johnson, Lawton, Spray, Obrien, McNair and the list goes on. There must be 50 guys in Larrys book alone who claimed to catch fish of world record size and they are all called liars. Yes in deed, They get that big. I dont think Dale was lying his fish was friggin huge. I dont support any of the records but I do not support calling them all liars either. I think if Dale had killed his fish and got it on a certified scale immediately he would be sitting on top of this argument and my guess is he would still be called a Liar. Sour apples people thats what all of this is. Jealousy pure and simple. Kingfisher OUT! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | sworrall - 6/28/2010 8:08 PM
'I got a good one for you. Fact and this is a fact. The so called world record group claims all the old fish are faked. In fact almost every claim at a fish over 60 pounds has been called a liar and there are over 20 men who have claimed this record and yet ? not one is held credible. Sour apples? I think so'
I don't have the time or patience to get the facts listed on the actions by the WRMA to date AGAIN here, Kingfisher, but before you accuse, you need to have your stuff straight. The WRMA has questioned/commissioned study on two fish, and that's it. And both of those were horse hockey.
The goal isn't to 'disprove', it's to study the fish and have the results prove it out either way.
Sorry, sworral. Im getting a little heated about this. Maybe not the world record club but I am correct that all of the old records have been called liars by many people over and over again. Faked mounts, skin stretching, rocks, weight added and every other bash that could be thrown. I am surprised that anyone would even post a picture of a big fish and make a claim of its size anymore. Know what I mean? Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I sure as hell didn't call Dale anything but on the phone for the first published interview about catching that monster.
Big fish. Anyone who says otherwise is nuts.
Was it a record? No idea. He released it. And I applaud him for that. Who doesn't?
Posting a really big fish here for the rest of us to enjoy isn't an issue. Worrying about any anonymous stupid post or jealous garbage from the peanut gallery is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Yea, what I should have said was many guys have used what the World record group published about the Spray fish to try and shoot down every other fish out there. Funny how some people became experts on Photo analysis soon after the study was done.
If Dale was telling the truth( and I think he was) and his fish measured 57 by 33 it was a world record according to the Muskies inc formula. Even if he was off on the girth by an inch and it was 32 it still comes out at 72 pounds. This post was about how big can they get. I say they get as big as Dales fish . 57 by 33 .
So 51 by 28 was killed, confirmed and was for a time the Michigan record. The fish proved beyond any doubt that a fish can exceed half its length in girth by up to 3 inches. A claimed 53 by 29 was posted. Again over half of its length in girth. Not confirmed but the picture speaks for itself. And then Dales 57 by 33 . Half of 57 is 28.5 so his fish at 33 is 4.5 inches over half. I think all of these and many more prove that these fish can be heavy for their length and they are being caught almost every year. They are just released and there fore cant be counted as records but in my opinion they prove that they do get that big. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Max Age of a Muskie? Depends on the average seasonal temps, forage, water body, chemistry of the system, and a lot more. MuskieFIRST interviewed several Muskie fisheries managers over the years from Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Utah, and found the life expectancy of a Muskie can vary WIDELY depending on the above variables from 12 years or less to 26 years and more. Kingfisher, I hear ya, some folks just don't know when to refrain from keyboard activity. others, like J, add the debate by challenging concepts and calling out the shallow arguments...not at all a bad thing.
Does a new World Record Muskie exist? Yes. And the guy who catches it, kills it, and makes it so will catch hell from a contingent of The Official Self Appointed Muskie Agents From the Federal Bureau of Muskie EVERY FREAKING THING who have a tendency to ruin it all for many Muskie angers with their self centered bull#*#*. Ignore them.
If that fish ends up in my net by some miracle, it'll swim away and no one will ever be sure...just like Dale's fish and many more. We scream CPR, then bitch about it...
Interesting dichotomy, yes? |
|
| |
|
| i am also one of the guy who dont believe musky can reach 70 lbs
btw i think marc t,is the kind of guy who know what he is talking about...... |
|
| |
|
| LensC,its not muskies cannot surpass half their length in girth by 1 or 2 inches "in water measurement" its when they surpass 3 inches or more thats not common for "In water measurements"
generally from my observations fish over 55 inches,especially 57-58 seems to be uniform
depending on how you hold em well protrude the belly or not
Most of those fish are at the end of their life's"Peak period"
They are in good health ,they just dont max out and girth out as much as when they were shorter
And believe or not,they do regress in length and size a couple years prior to dying
Like most of all living matter on this planet |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Dr. Casselman's studies don't say a muskie will or has reached 70 lbs., he claims that it's possible with his studies of growth rates.
While I do think there is one out there, agreeing with MT that it's very unlikely isn't a discredit to Dr. C.
Funny how guides are great fountains of knowledge when you want them to be, but apparently not in this case?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| "Just remember if there were 60 pounders we would be catching them". Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe those fish are old and seasoned enough to have limited their choice of food sources to a very specific one and are not as succeptable to lures? Maybe those fish are feeding strictly on eelpout in 45 feet of water and never going shallow where anglers are? How can anyone know? Most people who want to fish Bass in Minnesota target the reeds and lilly pads but I've caught largemouth in 27 feet of water out in the middle of the lake while fishing for other species. Fish aren't always where they're "supposed" to be.
I do find it strange that in 2010 there are muskies in more waters than ever and way more people are targetting them by a number of tactics but still not putting the quality of fish in the boat like they did in Wisconsin so many years ago. The math really doesn't add up, as most would say we're in the "golden age" of muskie fishing as we speak. So either the fish that size aren't there, or they are there but they're extremely rare and/or exist in areas where anglers simply aren't going to catch them. I lean toward the latter. Good fishing, and good luck. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Interesting stuff and I wish I had more time to get into ALL of it, especially Marc's very interesting and well thought out post, although I think there is some "discussion" (not "debate") needed there too.
A lot of recent posts referring to age...The Malo fish (once referenced above), which I sincerely (now) believe was taken illegally and therefore could not be a RECORD contender DID prove two things: Muskies CAN get to 70 pounds and get VERY old...it was "scale aged" by Leon Johnson, WDNR research biologist at the time, at 33 years old. Since then scale aging has been proven (by Dr. Casselman and others) to be off to the "young" side on fish over 10 years or so and could have been off by several years on the Malo fish...who knows, it may have been nearer to 40 years old than 33!
Some food for thought!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | When it comes to the science I tend to listen pretty carefully to scientists.
I spoke with Dr. Casselman at the Symposium on the issue, and he didn't waver much on the data. I admit, if he changed his stance on the subject, I'd change mine....
Big picture.
Biologists ARE very interested in 'layman' experiences, I speak with fisheries folks all the time as well. That doesn't make me an expert on the subject; I still listen when the most respected scientists on the subject are asked and then answer a question. I believe a World record Muskie has been caught and released in the last few years. I believe that fish was much larger than any ever caught in the States. I don't know how big they can get, I'm not an expert on that subject. I've read about everything out there on the subject too, because it interests me. I know what the preeminent scientist IN that field told me at the Symposium and that many other highly respected fisheries professionals tend to support that learned opinion, so I'll go with that until it's proven out to be incorrect.
I believe perhaps there's a fish out there in a 'perfect storm' place and time scenario that might weigh over 70#. I don't believe there are very many....in fact, I believe there are precious few, or someone would have killed one in the last decade and this conversation wouldn't be occurring. |
|
| |
What Is The Maximum Size A Musky Can Grow??