|
|
Posts: 366
| Ok, so it is a regular occurrence that a fish pic is posted and a measurement is stated and the criticism begins, and then the criticism is criticized and eventually the thread is either locked or rambles on for a while until only a couple people continue to carry the torch in order to cover for bigger personal issues. So that being said, it is possible to have a discussion about measurement accuracy that doesn’t involve specific fish and/or anglers? Not sure it will fly, or remain civil, but we’ll have to see. Maybe no one gives a care to discuss hypothetical criticism, but I just find it fascinating how it seems to be such a strong part of muskie fishing, maybe more than any other species that I’ve ever witnessed. Is the mythology, rumor, exaggeration, secrecy, speculation, and/or scrutiny a good part of muskie fishing? Will it ever change?
Does it bother you when someone posts a measurement that you find hard to believe or inaccurate? What about a claim that you don’t agree with bothers you? Do you choose to reply and comment on said inaccuracy? Do you comment because you think that it is your duty to put “liars” in their respective place, or to teach the rookies that measurement “accuracy” matters in the muskie world? Do you think that if you question someone else’s measurement that you should preface your beliefs with your own fishing resume so that the offender knows how you know better? Do you think that claimed measurements as a whole are more accurate than they used to be, or less, or will always be about the same?
If a measurement doesn’t appear to be accurate and it doesn’t bother you, why doesn’t it? Should a measurement ever be called into question? Does it annoy you when someone discounts someone else’s measurement claim? Is it about how the criticism is delivered, or that it is done at all? Have you ever wanted to say something about a claim, but just didn’t because it wasn’t your place? Have you ever been criticized for a claim, whether it was accurate, or not?
Well, that covers enough starting points for a healthy discussion about the current state of muskie fishing measurement claims, so what do you think? I know it is a bit excessive, or overly comprehensive, but I’d like to hear both sides of this common controversial conversation point. Why does it happen so often and get so heated? Is it about ego, or accuracy to a fault?
Ryan
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Good Morning Ryan,
For me personally its not really about the numbers. Yes I want my measurements to be as accurate as possible without undo stress on the fish. As for the measurements of others. I honestly could care a less. A huge fish is a huge fish. Whether its call 50" 54" or 57" their all big fish. I just like looking at the fish and hearing about where they were caught. For those that feel the need to question those measurments its fine as long as they keep it to themselves. I always get a kick out of post from people registared or not that call out the angler that caught these huge fish. To me it speaks volumes about their character or lack of. Its a fish for crying out loud. I wish people would remember that. Measurement accuracy matters only when your dealing with a fish of World Record proportion. I have yet to see a fish on this or any other site even come close that size.
If it were up to me I would keep the folks with the small penis affliction at bay. But everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I just wish they could look at a picture of a fish and appreciate the time on the water, the planning and the huge amount of luck that went into catching a fine creature. Relax and have fun with it. To critize a persons account of a huge fish makes you look petty and jealous. Not the qualities of a good and or a self-confident musky fisherman.
Edited by Hunter4 8/11/2010 5:22 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32892
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As with many subjects here, it isn't necessarily what is said, it's how it's said.
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | on subject, last night while watching the History Channel i saw Jim Lindner and Lee Tauchen safely on top of the ice while they searched the depths of mille lacs for the giant fish that are now attacking people in the northern midwestern U.S.. they were unable to film the elusive giant that lurks below even with some pretty expensive equipment and at least a couple machines that looked like they would go "BING" ... dangerous and very, very scarey. | |
| | |
| For the most part, I've stopped measuring most fish I catch. Heck, I've even stopped with the pictures. I don't really care anymore if that fish is a 38" or a 43" or a 45" or....... I may try to get a measurement if that fish is pushing 50" or a pb if it's safe for the fish at that point. I may get a quick pic if that fish is somehow more meaningful/stands out to me. Other than that, I don't really care if that fish you caught is 40" or 60". It was your fish and thus it's your story to tell. If "those people" feel the need to embellish and can still feel good about it then so be it. | |
| | |
| Interesting topic. Just one of the many little things that bothers me about us musky fisherman. I compare it to the gross score obsessed tropy deer hunters. who will lie, cheat, and steal to get that magic number of 170 bc. If a guy catches a 49.5 and is upset and calls it a fifty, whatever. If some guy mesures his first muskie from the top of the fish and gets another inch, big deal. I am just happy when one gets in my net! Besides trophy fish are judged by weight not leangth  lol, thats a whole nother can o worms! | |
| | |
Posts: 157
| I have photo's from every musky I have ever caught with the exception of one. If anyone knows Jon Stelflue(sp) or if he uses this forum have him give me a PM. I fished with him 2 years ago and the camera we had took a crap. He had one and I'd really like to track down that photo so I have the complete collection.
Back to the topic. I've been fishing for 7 years or so and I think it's very neat to look back at how I've changed as well as how the rigs we've fished out of and the people I've fished with have changed. All of the photos have unique characteristics that make them special and memorable whether it be the time of day the were taken or the type of weather we were fishing it. It doesn't matter to me it the musky we caught was 14'' or 50'', every photo has alot more than just the fish to it. Accuracy is important, but not to a scientific level for me. I lay them down on the board, pinch the tail and round to the nearest half inch downward. Just my personal technique. Now with a PB I take very careful measurements just because it's my largest. I like to know EXACTLY what it was because it's not going to get beat every day.
When it comes to critizing other people's fish I'd just as soon stay out of it.
Every fisherman knows whether or not the fish they caught was as big as they claimed. My conscious would eat at me if I claimed I got a 50'' that was 49 1/2". | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I usually measure fish over 40 inches, but I have learned that I'm not very good at it. I actually have had several people explain to me how I've been undermeasuring them.
I even had very knowledgable people explain why my best fish was probably 1.5 to 2 inches longer than what I thought it was. I measured it to be about 52 3/4 so I was just calling it a 52. (I don't really care about fractions so much.) But, the tail wasn't straight, (bending up some because the fish was green as could be), and I may have not even measured the longer part of the tail fin. From what people said, the top part of the tail fin is most often the longest and I measured off the bottom part. So, after a bit of discussion and some convincing of myself, I came to believe my fish, (near my login) was probably somewhere around 54 to 54.5 inches long. So, I'm calling it 54 to be safe. (And because I don't like fractions very much).
Inaccurate measurements go both ways. It seems there are some of us who under-measure them too. Maybe we are just measuring impaired?
Edited by Herb_b 8/11/2010 9:25 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I use a wet bump board....I value every fish I catch.....I measure all that are low 30" +......it is good practice for you too (how to handle a fish, measure, picture), it realy does take some practice.
The bump board is the only accuate way to get a length measurement. It is also the fastest. Years ago I strugled with laying a fish on a board, but it goes so fast, that I think if a measurement is to be taken, it is the best method. Get a good gill grab on the fish and hang on tight so if she doesn't cooperate you can keep her from flopping around.
Edited by Jomusky 8/11/2010 9:48 AM
Attachments
----------------
 100_2230 [640x480].JPG (44KB - 180 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Bump boards don't lie,.. everyone needs one... 5-8 seconds on the board and it's a done deal, You can't get any more accurate
Now girthing a fish is harder, alot of people screw this up for some reason
people who are around Big muskies alot know the difference between a 24" girth and a 29" girth. Ok.....
Jerome | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | imo if you measure a fish do it right...lengths, girths etc..if you aren't going to do it right..then don't do it... if you don't want to measure a fish and then call it whatever length you want (or think it was), I would hope you aren't posting pics of 45s then saying it was 48.. unless you measure something don't put your pics out there for others to see and call it a certain length (or girth) if you didn't actually measure it... imo.
Also, if you do measure a fish but maybe don't do the best job...how can you then call it anything else later? if you measure it 48 but maybe didn't do the best job so be it...my first big fish I measured faulty w/ the old floating stick job at 49.5...it probably was a 50...but since I didn't measure it right, it's a 49.5 in my book and wasn't my 1st 50...
I guess that's just the way I see it....
it's not hard to measure fish these days..get a bumpboard, butt up the snout, swipe the tail and see which tail is longer and there you have it..how hard can that be? girth, simple..if you want to do it...imo it is easier on the bumpboard..put your tape there on the bumpboard, about where the belly is and then simply snug it up and read it...not hard at all....
I've never had any of my fish lengths or girths questioned..if I did I would laugh...as I'm about as anal as they come in that regard... do it right, and accurately or don't do it at all and just call it a nice fish....
this video from Skie Patrol guides, shows how quickly and easily it can be done..and accurately..
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/videos/08.13.2009/1775/Muskie.Relea...
Edited by BNelson 8/11/2010 10:44 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Ill Second bump boards. Acurate and yes they dont lie. I saw a real cool improvement to the bump board this July on Captain Craig Millers (Lake st. Clair charter) Heatwave. He has a 60 inch length ruler glued to the inside of his 60 inch Live well. This way you can measure the fish in the water and acurate. He girths them right in the tank as well. Very awesome new tool for the guys using the fish tank live wells. This even removes the 8 seconds of air time measuring.
We still measure every fish over 30 as we are turning them into Muskies inc. and we keep a catch log so we have accurate information to look back on. I have to look at it a little different then most guys because we build lures and that requires more data as far as what size fish tend to eat what lures etc etc etc . I hate flame wars about fish that guys come forward with. No one has ever said our fish were smaller then they were. Im thankful of that. Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 294
Location: Bloomer, Wi | Iagree with jerome and bnelson . A bumpboard is sooooo easy, while your taking the hooks out the other person gets the board wet and layed out, camera ready if you want. On the board turn around a quick pause on the way back to the water for a picture and your done.
And it only takes one person to measure a fish on a board, too easy not to have a board.
| |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I have a bump board, but it is bad luck. I never catch anything when its in the boat. Leave it home the next time and the fish are in the net. Bring it with and nothing. Its like a bad luck hat. Gotta stay away from those bad luck things. I just use my 56 inch plastic stick with a 1x2 board attached so it floats. Then I just measure them in the water. Close enough.
The only problem is I wonder how many of the 49 to 49.5 inch Muskies both I and friends have caught that might have been 50 inchers. Sorry about that Captain. You might have had a 50 after all..... | |
| | |
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Back to the original question, how many people think Barry Bonds is a better baseball player than Henry Aaron? How many people think Louis Spray was a better fisherman than Jonesi or Maina? Inflated numbers diminish the accomplishment for some people. If you're not one of those people and have no issues with inflated measurements, I applaud you. I wish I was OK with it but it bothers me, especially when people use inflated measurements to gain financially.
Btw, I don't post fish pics and I don't comment on those that do. You know you caught a nice fish you don't need me telling you it's big, or if you muffed the measurements I'm not going to change your mind.
Edited by Flambeauski 8/11/2010 11:38 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 433
Location: Cedarburg, Wisconsin | Well, in MY boat we use a 6' dial caliper, accurate to .0001" for those critical length measurements. Like it matters!
I agree with Steve on this one.
| |
| | |
Posts: 540
| Wich ways work best for measuring big fish! bump board is a given for good measurement but what would be the best way for girth? there is different ways, in the water, out of the water, string around them? I think alot of people don't know actually the best way and the quickest ways to do the job! when someone catches a huge fish and they post measurements and they don't specify how they did it or it sounds like they might not of known how to do it even and there is'nt detailed picture to prove what looks like a innacurate measurement, your going to get critism from people that is just the way it is! maybe they should have been more informed before they posted measurements and pics, maybe everyone argues too much on the best ways to measure and know one knows the best ways! ????
Edited by leech lake strain 8/11/2010 1:03 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | Leech Lake Strain, go back and check out the pic I put up in the Vermilion 55" thread...to me that is easiest ...I know some guys do it in the water but a squirrely , slimy fish is hard to measure the girth on in the water esp in waves...
get a girth tape, and have it on the bumpboard pulled out, ready to go, so when you set the fish on the board it is already in place to measure the fattest part of the belly...I have girthed a few out of the water and then girthed them in the water and they were the same...no difference..now these were fish in the 21-23 range, i have seen I think Marc Thorpe say the super fatties in the 27 plus range will be fatter I believe out of the water but again, I find it hard to believe it would be much more than a 1/2 inch difference as my experimenting proved it to be the same....
| |
| | |
Posts: 366
| Yeah, I threw a lot of questions out there, but I don't believe one of them was about how to measure a fish. I guess most guys don't actually read an original post before commenting on what the last person has said.
I’m pretty sure the proper measurement techniques discussion has been covered a time or two before, and wasn’t the point of my post, but oh well. As it is said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.
| |
| | |
| one could easily gather from quite a few posts in this thread and the 55"er thread there are many guys that could use some proper measurement advice. some even saying they have been musky fishing since the mid 1980s. | |
| | |
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | What bothers me is what is on the Big Fish Entry on the homepage right now under "caught with crankbait LOTW ONT"....47"????? how bout 40-41 at best. Insults everyone's intelligence and someone should say something to keep illegitimate claims from getting out of control | |
| | |
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | leech lake strain - 8/11/2010 1:00 PM
Wich ways work best for measuring big fish! bump board is a given for good measurement but what would be the best way for girth? there is different ways, in the water, out of the water, string around them? I think alot of people don't know actually the best way and the quickest ways to do the job! when someone catches a huge fish and they post measurements and they don't specify how they did it or it sounds like they might not of known how to do it even and there is'nt detailed picture to prove what looks like a innacurate measurement, your going to get critism from people that is just the way it is! maybe they should have been more informed before they posted measurements and pics, maybe everyone argues too much on the best ways to measure and know one knows the best ways! ????
I only measure girth in the water. It's way easier and of course better for the fish. If she swims away before I throw a tape around... so be it. | |
| | |
| let's remember that we're all releasing the fish, so we do share that in common as a goal. measurement or photo is really a personal preference thing; releasing is a need for preservation of the fisheries.
fishing with Doug Johnson the last couple years has been a revelation for me. unless it's a 50"-class fish, he doesn't even net the fish: just fights them to the boat, says hello, and unhooks them to swim away. he's obviously pretty good at estimating fish size and he's not that worried about being precise. and he makes the very good point that "they all look about the same in a picture anyway."
this has been hard for me, as i'm someone who wants to know the size exactly and have a picture of the fish. but after experiencing this with Doug i'm going to try to start doing the same, at least on the smaller fish. so as an alternative i starting pulling the camera out and taking pictures of the fight and release when my partner hooked one...and honestly, i found that the pictures turned out better than another shot of Big Mo holding "just another 40 incher."
Attachments
----------------
mo1.jpg (29KB - 184 downloads)
mo2.jpg (32KB - 179 downloads)
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | jonnysled - 8/11/2010 7:02 AM
on subject, last night while watching the History Channel i saw Jim Lindner and Lee Tauchen safely on top of the ice while they searched the depths of mille lacs for the giant fish that are now attacking people in the northern midwestern U.S.. they were unable to film the elusive giant that lurks below even with some pretty expensive equipment and at least a couple machines that looked like they would go "BING" ... dangerous and very, very scarey.
Do you think they regret being associated with that show???
Dorkiest thing that i have ever scene.
Back on topic...... I fall into the category of not caring about some strangers measurements. If somebody calls a fish a 28 or 29 inch girth that is obviously not the stated girth, I have no desire to publicly call a guy out. Anybody who has caught a lot of fish can tell that it is BS.
| |
| | |
Posts: 171
Location: indiana | i measure them all. probably don't need to, just gives the fish an i.d. really. both of my fifty inch class fish have been measured by someone else. i unhook and lay on bumpboard and had partner look at measurement. they had nothing invested in fish and had no reason to fudge. i didn't even look at the tail as they measured. | |
| | |
| I noticed Jomusky's pic - just remember, biologists insist that vertical holds with no support on the body damage fish in a exponential manner as their size increases. Damage to the spinal column, connective tissue and a whole host of issues occurs.
Just another problem associated with bringing fish into the boat and sticking them on a bump board in the first place...
DC | |
| | |
Posts: 565
Location: WI | lambeau - 8/11/2010 2:30 PM
fishing with Doug Johnson the last couple years has been a revelation for me. unless it's a 50"-class fish, he doesn't even net the fish: just fights them to the boat, says hello, and unhooks them to swim away.
Just curious, but why not net the fish? Even if you don't take them out of the water for a meausrement and picture, wouldn't netting them reduce the stress on the fish since you don't have to play them out so much to safely get at the hooks? | |
| | |
| Doug said that he believes that nets just add to the stress the fish experiences. we didn't really play them out any longer, either. just brought them to the side of the boat, grabbed the leader in one hand and popped the hooks out with a needlenose in the other hand.
i know my bumpboards float...and most fish will cooperate boatside for a bit...could avoid the extra handling for a pic and still get an accurate measurement... 
| |
| | |
| Hiya -
I guess this will be another one of those occasions where I re-earn my status as an elitist, extremist, radical whatever, but...I'm past caring...
I freaking hate bump boards. I hate what they stand for. I hate what they can do to fish. I hate the part of the muskie culture of the last few years that makes guys feel the need to squeeze every last fraction of an inch out of a fish, then take a girth measurement besides...
If I could snap my fingers and dis-invent bump boards, I'd do it. There...just tried it.
They're still here aren't they? Dang it...
I watched a fairly well-known muskie fishermen absolutely maul a 41-incher that he HAD to measure on a bump board. This is a guy who's caught plenty of big fish, so it wasn't like a 16-pounder was a novelty or a memorable fish. Anyhow.. Fish got loose and was all over the boat. Hooks in the fish, hooks in the carpet, hooks in the fisherman. All to find out of it was 40 or 41. It was 41, but after that fiasco it had about a 2% chance of surviving to see 42. While he stood there and bled with a 5/0 sticking out of his hand I asked him if he really cared that much how big it was. And was it worth it to know - to him or the fish?
It just seems to me we're going backwards.
We went from bopping every fish we caught to finally having water releases and fish-friendly nets (finally - for a long time guys didn't use nets because knotted bags shredded fish), a floating stick measurement and quick over the side photos being SOP, then, it seems to be, began to slide backwards to girth measurements (suddenly 50 inches isn't enough...it has to be 50 with a big girth) and bringing fish into the boat to flop them on a bump board to measure to the fraction of a freaking inch. (Someone the other day told me they caught a 44-7/8" and I though..."Oh please...call it 44. Call it 45. Who cares? 8ths of an inch?? Really??")
To me it's all just unnecessary handling of the fish. Measure it with a stick, get reasonably close, and call it good if you must. If it's 44 or 44-1/2 (or 5/8 or 3/4) who cares? Nobody but YOU. If someone says "it doesn't look that big in the picture" so what. I can show you two pictures of guys holding a 50 and a 53-incher, respectively, and taken by the same person with the same camera. The 53 looks like a nice fish. The 50 looks like a mile-long whale.
I shouldn't be this judgmental I suppose, and to be fair using a bump board in the water is probably not bad at all, although I haven't seen it in action. But so much bad and so little good can come from bringing a fish into the boat I just can't see it justified by an "accurate measurement" that really doesn't matter to anyone. Just let the thing go.
Bottom line...I've seen bump boards used, and I've seen how Doug Johnson and guys like him handle fish. I can tell you pretty definitely which method's better for the fish.
So maybe I'm an elitist, radical, pedantic zealot. I can live with that. Fire away... I've been called worse. But to me, the fish matter more than their size.
Did I mention that I don't much care for bump boards?
Cheers,
Rob Kimm
| |
| | |
Posts: 619
| i agree w/ rob kimm. also agre w/ doug johnson. i just do water release most of the time. why do you need to put it on a bump board? who really cares unless its a true monster. less handling better chance the fish gets dumped on the floor or mishandled. less chance the angler gets cut too. why do you even need to net it if its not that a monster, just pop it off unless its hooked really bad. whats another pic of a 45 in fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I quit measuring my own fish last year (I usually measured a guest's for them since it was often their first one), but began again this year at the request of the biologist in charge of the waters I fish. They requested a length measurement (no girth) and a few scales for aging.
Now before some of you decide to jump down my throat about aging with scales...these fish are all tigers, they live to be about 9 years old so scales can be a valid method of estimating age. It's not like you have to try to identify and count 24 annuli to get an age here. The data is to help determine age class strengths and more precisely refine the stocking quotas.
Precise measurements? Over-rated for recreation IMO. Nice to know when a fish is close to or at some arbitrary 'magic mark' though. But some people have really cool cameras and like to use them - muskies make nice subjects.
I'd rather see nice photos than precise measurements.
S. | |
| | |
Posts: 69
Location: Pittsburgh | pedantic zealot??? | |
| | |
Posts: 21
| I too no longer measure my fish. I only estimate in the net. Best move i have made in terms of success was to stop with the accurate measurements. This year my average length of catch has increased by 7" per fish due to these estimates!!!
Try it it will make you a better fisherman!
Bob | |
| | |
| Simple fisherman - 8/11/2010 7:57 PM
pedantic zealot???
pedantic: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously opinionated.
zealot: : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan
pedantic zealot.
If the shoe fits... | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
And to that I will raise a toast RK.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 2018
| bob mesikomer should invest in a bumpboard! | |
| | |
| Both are words. Go look them up.
Tee Hee | |
| | |
Posts: 69
Location: Pittsburgh | Thank you RK | |
| | |
| Just like lures progress from Mepps Musky Killers to Double Cowgirls, like rods progress from 6' pool cues to 9' split grips, and our locators progress from Zercom flashers to $2,500 side-imaging, weather predicting, tv screens... I think our CPR and fish handling tactics need to follow the same progretion. I think it's time to put first the excitement of the catch and appreciation/respect of the fish far before the length and or girth measurement of every muskie we catch. I think if more and more of us can listen to and practice what Rob Kimm is preaching and what Doug Johnson practices it will do wonders for our muskie fishing future.
The last few years now I have been attempting to water release all of my muskies if safely possible, and only measure now what I consider to be trophy fish. I have had to make the ego fueling length and girth measurements of 48 inchers a thing of the past and at first it was difficult. However, there's something rewarding about watching a 4' fish swim away that you caught and released without having to lay a hand on it. | |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | The less you handle the fish the better off it is. Netting fish when they are green is much harder on a fish then playing it to the boat and releasing it untouched. Fish in a net are fighting the net and even with the big rubber coated nets bad things can happen (fish roll, hooks get caught, etc and release time is extended). It's much easier on the fish if it's possible to just reach down and flip the hook out with a long nose pliers that it is to net the fish. I've done this with hundreds of fish and for the most part they just swim off even in high water temps. Just did it again today with the same results. Perhaps I've seen too many muskies but a picture of a 38"er doesn't impress me much. I guess that I really don't care if the fish is 40" or 41". I usually water measure fish that I think are 48" or better, and sometimes we take a photo. Not always, we've caught many fish up to 54" that for some reason we never took a picture of, usually because we forgot the camera. Doug Johnson | |
| | |
Posts: 580
| I hear what you are saying RK, and I'd like to agree with you. But, I don't know, is it really that big of a deal to measure and photo a fish? I mean, really think about it. You are intentionally trying to impale a fish's face with very sharp large hooks, then wrestle it against it's will to the boat with extremely stout tackle....you're certainly going to hook some very deeply, and occasionally have some hooks in gills, etc....but with all of that potential trauma to the fish, for some reason you are drawing the line at a quick measurement and photograph?
I like to think that I take extra precautions at all times to not harm a fish. But honestly, if a fish is going to die on me, I really don't think that 15-30 seconds out of the water for a quick measurement and picture is what does her in....a photo does not hurt a fish. The bump board doesn't hurt the fish. 15-30 seconds out of the water might be moderately uncomfortable for the fish, but there's no lasting harm from that. However, hooks in eyes, hooks in gullets, hooks in gills...well, if you're really, really concerned about the fish's well-being, that's where I'd suggest you focus your attention.
Do I really need a photo of a 42"er? Probably not. Do I really need to go fishing for it in the first place? Probably not. But I like to fish, and I like pictures and when I catch a fish, I'm curious to know how big it is. Yeah, by now I can estimate pretty well, but since I really don't think it does any harm, what does it hurt to get an accurate measurement. You won't see me posting my fish catches here on this board, or any other...so I really don't think that I have some ego-driven problem.
My problem probably is that I still get quite a thrill when I catch a 42". I hope that never changes. A picture in the moment is a great way to memorialize that moment and that feeling. And since I really don't think that it hurts the fish, I'll probably keep doing it until I'm old and gray. Hope so, anyway. | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I use a Disto for pinpoint laser accuracy when measuring.
Kevin
Edited by MuskyHopeful 8/11/2010 9:17 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 20229
Location: oswego, il | I do not measure all of my fish under 40" but do some and my friends who want them measured we do. I also measure my kids fish as I enter those in the M.I. contest. To Rob's incident, I don't understand why anyone would hold a fish with a lure in it's mouth, let alone take one from a net that way, asking for trouble that to me seems to be why the incident happened.
I have never girthed a fish, I suppose when I catch a bunch of 55+'ers and need to know which one was the biggest maybe? Probably not.
One thing, I have never understood why someone has to be upset over a posted fish that looks 45 when they say it's 48 or a 27" girth that looks 22". They don't seem to be in a contest let alone for money, they only matter to the person who caught it and will be forgotten by most in a few days. What is more amazing is these same people could care less about the reocrd fish, THE ONES THAT MATTER, that look even less like their respected claims than say a 50 that loks 48. It's something that absolutely baffles me.  | |
| | |
Posts: 463
Location: Sw Pennsylvania | IAJustin - 8/11/2010 9:19 PM
bob mesikomer should invest in a bumpboard! :)
I 2nd that vote | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | I agree with Matt, no disrespect RK or Doug J but you guys have probably caught in the thousands of muskies correct? Can you go back and remember when you only had say 20 under your belt, or even 100 ...did you get a thrill from that 38"er and want a pic..I would hope so... that is where many guys are at in the sport...not where you are with thousands of muskies in the boat...try to remember that..The guys that do want a measurement and a pic aren't knocking the guys that have caught so many they don't feel the need to net fish or take pics..but some of you guys seem to want to knock the guys that still do get a thrill from a 38" and wouldn't mind a pic or 2 of a fish..regardless of size....I typically won't take pics of fish under 40" anymore but I sure as heck don't knock the guys that do...
I was fishing with a friend recently that hasn't caught very many but has quite a few 50 plus..he got slammed by a fish mid retrieve, thought it was big, when we saw it, it wasn't...but still a thrill....he wanted a pic..fish were active and I tried to talk him into a quick water release, no pics....it was a mid 30 inch fish...I'm glad I did take the pic...it is a memory...one that our minds in 40 yrs won't remember but the pic will remind us of the thrill that day, the fish, and catching bigger fish that day ... to each their own..I guess I don't get why some guys that have caught so many feel like it's bad to take a pic...like Matt said, we are fishing with hooks... a quick measure and a few quick pics isn't going to kill the fish...at least from any study I know of..until then I will take pics of the fish I think I want a pic of regardless if it's a 36" tiger or a 53"er...I hope we don't get to a point we are fighting with each other over if it's right or wrong to measure and take a pic...fishing for muskies is fun..and so are the pics...I too hope I never get to a point I don't want a quick pic of a nice musky...
Edited by BNelson 8/11/2010 9:42 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Nope, I'm not saying that a quick photo and a 1/10 of an inch measurement aren't O,K, if that's what you need to do. I'm just saying what's easier on the fish. I guide and we take accurate measurements and photo's of many fish. If done with the fish in mind and under lower water temperatures most fish survive. I guide many people who catch their first muskie or their PB, or a 50"er. We take accurate measurements and photo's. However, I know that this isn't the best thing to do for the fish. What I'm trying to say is that if you don't really have a good reason to do all this don't, it'll save a few fishes lives. Doug Johnson | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | big difference between need and want...
well the best thing for the fish isn't tossing 8/0 razor sharp hooks at it....but anyway...
I see your point and agree, to some degree....
Edited by BNelson 8/11/2010 10:03 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | dcraven - 8/11/2010 4:09 PM
I noticed Jomusky's pic - just remember, biologists insist that vertical holds with no support on the body damage fish in a exponential manner as their size increases. Damage to the spinal column, connective tissue and a whole host of issues occurs.
Just another problem associated with bringing fish into the boat and sticking them on a bump board in the first place...
DC
Your absolutely correct about the vertical hold but the pic was taken for demonstration purposes and it was a smaller fish (mid 30" I think). I've been waiting for someone to make mention of it as I have used the photo for many years now. I feel the gill grab is the most important thing to practice and preach as dropping fish or fish flopping around in the boat is very bad on them. I see so many pictures of people with fish who are not gill grabbing them. I'm just trying to do my part to help people learn the best way. Safest for the fish and the fisherman. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| To me, the whole exaggeration is kind of an insult. Like, if you get away with it, you're pullin' one over on me, and if you get away with it, you win.
Our whole world is based on numbers. Why is it OK to lie about something? I actually earned $70k last year, but I'll only claim $55k for taxes and child support. Is that acceptable?
No, its not the same, but where does a little fib become a lie? At what point is the exaggeration too great to be acceptable?
The other side of this is that a picture can do a fish justice, but it can also make a nice fish look small. Tough to tell sometimes, and in the end, I guess you just need to worry about yourself and ask yourself what's important to you.
The funniest one for me is the walleyes you see posted out of Green Bay and the Fox in the springtime. That's gotta take the cake for fish tales. These jokers really make me laugh when they're claiming 6-7 pounds on 22-24" fish. I thought I was catching 6 pound fish when I first moved here too....until I actually put them on a Rapala digital scale. Yikers! NOT six pounds.
Some of the stuff you see posted sure makes ya laugh sometimes......
-Eric | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | There's a lot of golfers that think they're really big hitters. Then they buy a GPS unit that can measure how far a shot was hit to within a foot or two. As these units have become more affordable, purchasing and using one has been a very humbling and eye opening experience for many.
Doesn't mean they were liars, they were just measuring the distance of their shots in a faulty manner. I think the percentage of fishermen that actually post pictures and lie about the size of the fish is pretty small. Most mis-measure in the heat of the moment, and are so excited about their catch they can't wait to share.
I'd like to invent a camera type device that measures fish accurately and quickly. That would shut everybody up, and make me rich.
Kevin | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it aint "how" .... it's "how-many" | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | jonnysled - 8/11/2010 11:05 PM
it aint "how" .... it's "how-many"
But that first big one makes the "how many" so much easier. LOL. If I recall correctly. #*^@ GPS.
Kevin | |
| | |
| Hi Matt -
Have to say up front - still a thrill for me to catch a 42 incher too. If it's ever not, it's time to hang it up... I won't live long enough to catch half the muskies Doug has, but I bet he'd say the same.
Is there anything wrong with a quick photo and a quick measurement? Absolutely not. Shoot - I held up a 34-incher (my step-daughter's first muskie) for a photo last week. It was out of the water about 10 seconds. I still take fish pictures sometimes, although they're mostly in the water release shots just because I like those pictures a lot.
I want to be clear here... I won't knock anyone for wanting a photo. If that's part of what makes it fun, go for it. I don't think that taking a measurement and a photo and a quick, safe release are mutually exclusive. I think you can do that in a pretty fish-friendly way in a few seconds. Guys have done it that way for years.
I just have a hard time fitting a bump board into that equation. I think you can measure a fish in ways that are safer for everyone (you and the fish) that might be a little less accurate but a lot faster and easier on the fish. I get right back to what matters more - the fish, or how exactly how big it is.
I kind of thought the "if you're so worried about them don't use hooks" argument would come up before long. It always seems to. But I don't buy the reductio ad absurdum. I prefer single treble bucktails and two treble plugs when I can because they make fish easier to unhook, and I love spinnerbaits, but of course some fish will get hooked badly. I had one last week. It happens. If you start talking about not using hooks, you aren't talking about fishing anymore. I like to fish.
But a fish that inhales a bucktail so far you have to go through the gills to cut hooks is something totally out of your control. The same can't be said about bump boards, long out of the water photo sessions and a need to squeeze every fraction of an inch out of a fish. That's a conscious choice made by a person. To me it's a pretty basic ethical point. If the objective is to let the fish go with the highest chances of survival, to me the responsible thing to do is handle the fish in a way that makes that outcome most likely. I think most of the time you can do that and still, if you want to, measure a fish and take a few photos without reducing the chances of a successful release. Certain circumstances (rough water, a long fight, a complex unhooking process, hot water, etc.,) might change that to where the responsible thing to do is just unhook it as fast as you can and skip the measure and photo. It's not black and white. I think everyone eventually settles in to a comfortable spot along the range from measurement and photos of every fish to only measuring and photographing a special fish (special can mean a lot of things...big, first, who you're with, where you are...). For some, like Doug I think, and me for the most part, not messing with fish more than you need to is the default. I think you can be an ethical, responsible angler who cares about and takes care of the fish at any point along that spectrum if you make a conscious choice to do so.
But I'll get back to my point in the first post. To me, bump boards and bringing fish in the boat to get an "accurate measurement" cross the line in terms of how far one needs to go to measure a fish. I just think it's unnecessary when there are other ways to go about it that have little to no practical difference. Again - nobody else cares if it's 44 or 44-1/4. I just can't justify in my mind the extra handling for the sake of "accuracy." | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | I guess I fail to see how bringing a fish up and out of the net, and quickly onto a bumpboard for a quick and accurate measurement is any more harmful to the fish than what we are already doing..fishing with big hooks...if you look at the Skie Patrol guides video posted it shows how quickly and accurately it is done ...the whole floating stick in the water thing is fine if you don't care if it's 42 or 44 as to me there could be quite a bit of room for error there ...some like to know what a fish is, or isn't...I still like to know so to me, here's the thing..if it's over 40, I might like a pic...so that involves netting the fish...so I'm already taking it up, out of the net and into the boat right..so to me...laying it down, with a release glove on, onto the bumpboard for all of maybe 3 seconds and back up for a pic or 2 is no more "harm" to the fish or fisherman..... RK I applaud you that you are at the point you don't care so much if a fish is 42 or 44 , or 48 or 50...but some just like to know...you say nobody cares if it's 44 or 44.25...well what if I care if it's 44 or 45? cuz I do...also, to me it has no more harm on the fish than not doing so...I take pride in how careful I am with all the fish that are caught out of my boat..and to me, saying that simply laying a fish down on a wet bumpboard is somehow more harmful than sticking big hooks in its yapper and fighting it to the boat is wrong...imho.
Edited by BNelson 8/11/2010 11:47 PM
| |
| | |
| In my opinion BNelson said it best.....
"I too hope I never get to a point I don't want a quick pic of a nice musky..."
I love fishing because I have an absolute blast doing it and I also love to look at the pictures from various times and places. Without some of the pictures I surely wouldnt be able to recount all the details that happened on that trip or day, etc. I love paging through a photo album and recalling details about a certain fish and day. I also do care how long a fish is... fishing with a very experienced fisherman this summer, one of the very best I know, we both misjudged (most on the smaller side) many of the fish we caught. I'm GLAD we took 3 seconds to put the fish on a bumpboard and find out it was 46 instead of 43. I'm GLAD we took 3 seconds to put a fish on a bumpboard and find out it was 48 instead of 44. I'm also GLAD we put a fish on a bumpboard for 3 seconds and found out it was 48.5 instead of 50. It did no more harm to the fish than the hooks we already put in them.
But..... to each their own!
| |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
You can see different degrees of what people are willing and not willing to do in efforts to minimize impact of the fish they pursue.
Some feel that taking pics and measuring doesn't take long and if done right really isn't a big deal.
Some also feel that fishing in hot water isn't a big deal either, I mean if we're putting hooks in the mouth than how can hot water be a big deal, right??
Point being everyone can justify thier own actions, and rightfully so in most cases.
At the end of the day, one needs to think about not only today's catches, but tomorrows. I have lots of pics from the past, not so many new ones. I guess someday I'd rather still be catching fish than looking at memories that were measured and photoed. Certainly not saying that photos and measuring are a death sentence, but as DJ said, less handling is better. I'm sure I will contiue to photo and measure some fish, but that is a rare occasion now. (BN is thinking that 'cause you never catch any these days!!)
JS | |
| | |
| Agree with Matt. The stress of the catch and injuries from the hooks have the greatest impact on mortality rates. Laying one on a bump board for a few secs as opposed to measuring in the water makes no difference in the rate of mortality. | |
| | |
| This sport, when you come right down to it, is all about how big. Not about numbers, or anything else. People want a trophy. When someone posts an obviously bogus claim, it bothers people. Someone hooks a 46, doesn't measure it, and calls it a fifty, then claims they caught 50 over 50. It is what it is. | |
| | |
| Big Bob - So, you are saying that taking them out of their natural environment, exposing them to un-natural gravity, reducing the amount of protective slime "makes no difference" on survival rates? WOW!! You just went against what all fisheries biologists agree on. I'd say that is a quantum leap!
DCraven | |
| | |
| mortality - 8/12/2010 6:42 AM
Big Bob - So, you are saying that taking them out of their natural environment, exposing them to un-natural gravity, reducing the amount of protective slime "makes no difference" on survival rates? WOW!! You just went against what all fisheries biologists agree on. I'd say that is a quantum leap!
DCraven
Yep. No appreciable difference. Like going to the ER with a gunshot wound to the leg and then getting a paper cut along the way. And NO, it doesn't go against what all fisheries biologist agree on. | |
| | |
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | I'm with RK on this one, my thrill comes from catching the fish not in if it is 41"3/4 or 42" who cares. I think taking a fish out of THE WATER or net holding the fish up and laying it on a Hopefully WET Bumpboard to see if it is a 1/2 " longer or not is well WHATEVER | |
| | |
| Thanks for proving the point, Bob, that many folks believe we are going backwords in the "muskie world." In the 70's, muskie anglers were killing almost 50 percent of the muskies caught. As Muskies Inc. and other conservation minded movements came along, this changed. Change didn't come easy, but it came along. Quotes such as "release 'em right", "release them ALL", "let them go, let them grow", "water release" became themes - care for the fish. It is quite simple, less healthy fish in a body of water/country/continent equates to less fish able to be caught. Live fish, rather than dead fish, provide a bit more excitement at the end of an angler's line. They tend to reproduce a bit better, as well...
Fish brought into the boat risk a greater chance of boucing around, hitting their heads/eyes, etc than those left in the water - thus injuring themselves. They go without oxygen for a longer period of time, thus increasing stress. I don't write this for you, your mind is obviously made up, I write this for others who desire to follow proper release techniques - proven techniques.
As tournaments increased in popularity (yes, I realize that this tends to be a pro-tournament site), the total number of muskie anglers increased, and the muskies' range/occurance in various bodies of water increased we seem to have slid backwords in care/concern for the fish themselves. I'm all for new anglers into the sport, but many newer anglers to the sport have no idea where the muskie world has come from just since the late '70's and this needs to be known.
Everyone is on a varying/ranging spectrum in concern for the fish. My side tends to lean one way and yours is obviously closer to going back towards hitting them on the head or shooting them before you bring them into the boat for measure.
DC | |
| | |
| DC, from the day cameras were invented fishermen have been taking pictures. That has never changed and it never will. How is it you see this as going backwards? I really chuckle when guys say they are so concerned but are fishing with hooks. | |
| | |
| For all those reading this thread - a good read is Dr. Casselman's summary of "guidelines for proper handling techniques" published by the province of Ontario. Casselman and Crossman have a roughly 40 years of experience, each, in the world of all things muskie. IF you don't trust big bob or me, just read the text regarding exposure to air and what it does to the gills and such...
If you struggle finding it, go to "Google Scholar" and type in key words "muskie release" and then scroll down a bit. Also see if this works, if I can get all the characters correct; http://mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@letsfish/docume...
DC
| |
| | |
| Water temps and putting a fish on a bumpboard, big difference. Here's how I see it.
Do the number of fish found floating go up when water temps are hot ? Yes, we can all agree we see and find fish floating during this time.Is anyone finding floaters on lakes they think are from guys putting them on a bumpboard for 3 seconds? I don't think so.
Many guys fish small private lakes that they might be the only ones catching muskies in it for a week. Are they finding floaters from their bumpboard exposure and a couple pics? Not that I know.
If DC or anyone thinks that this added stress is really killing more fish than what you are doing to them already I would challenge the group that thinks that to do a study and prove it.
Until there is one I think it's comical imho. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I suppose maybe you need a study to find out if hitting yourself in the privates actually hurts?? I mean there isn't one out there, so maybe it really doesn't??
This is exactly the mentality that proves fish handling and awareness of said handling is going backwards from where we once were.
I guess once you put a hook in a fish after that nothing makes any difference. Maybe on my next catch I'll just take the fish home with me to show the kids and then drive it back to the lake to release it.
JS
| |
| | |
| Rationalize anything you want, think it comical even... The point being made is reducing stress within the given bounds of the angling techniques.
Yep, we use hooks. This has been mentioned in previous posts within this thread already; but I'll say it again, then I'm done to let individuals ponder this themselves and decide on their own. For instance, myself, I use single hooked bucktails the vast majority of the time. I tend not to bring fish in the boat if at all possible. I hold fish horizontally for pics if pics are taken - and they should be taken! I try to reduce chances, as much as possible, for fish injury. That is what is being discussed here.
We can participate in the sport we love to whatever degree we so choose. I have the right, here in MN, to go catch a muskie of legal size (each day) and go feed it to my dogs or bury it in my garden if I desire. I can treat the fish with no respect, lift them up by the eyes (this too was standard procedure not that long ago until folks were educated about the fact that it damages the fish), keep them out of the water for as long as I want, lay them on a hot,dry bump board and release them, too. I could stun them with a club to "subdue" them while I bring them into the boat. We have the right to do all these things.
The point being made is this: Why not reduce the stressors to the fish so more fish live? This was standard practice for a couple of decades. Water sticks were used instead of bump boards. And that is what started this discussion regarding bump boards.
DC | |
| | |
| I think some people need to quit fishing period, if they feel that strongly about harming a fish. Seems like sort of a double standard though doesnt it?......Im gonna bury this here 8/0 in your head as hard as I can, but I am very concerned I might hurt you if I take your picture or try to see how big you are.
Come on guys, seriously?????????? WOW! I guess the heatwave is getting to everyone.
There is nothing wrong with a quick measure, photo and release. If done quick, correct, and efficiant there should be no worries. Im not gonna feel pressure from anyone to stop measuring my fish and taking pictures of them correctly. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | DC, I think most if not all of us can agree that it probably does cause slighty more harm to the fish by measuring it and taking a pic...but I don't think anyone who has a bumpboard does it on a hot dry one..that's a stretch...do you realllllly think that those that do are killing fish because of a bumpboard and measure??? I suppose those unskilled or inexperienced in it might cause some harm should they drop a fish or let one bounce around a boat (or some even let it flop out of the boat before measuring he he) but really....I guess I am confident and experienced enough that I'm quite certain I'm not killing fish by a quick measure and pic....I have lots of reasons to believe this.... | |
| | |
Posts: 444
| I agree, nothing wrong with a quick bump. Besides dont the DNR net Muskies, in a net, pull them out of the water and such to install pit tags, or RF tags and such?? | |
| | |
| going backwords - 8/12/2010 7:32 AM
My side tends to lean one way and yours is obviously closer to going back towards hitting them on the head or shooting them before you bring them into the boat for measure.
DC
I never inferred that. There are many variables that effect mortality and I'm just putting a weight to them. | |
| | |
| Rob, if i hear you correctly, your basic point is that an over-emphasis on measurement leads to additional time-out-of-water for the fish. that's a very obviously true statement.
if we accept the also obvious fact that many of us will always want to accurately measure and photograph at least some of the fish we catch, then we should make sure to do it in the most fish-friendly way possible. i'm sure you did so in the pictures you've used in your books and articles.
my experience has been that when getting a photograph and measurement of the fish, the bumpboard is the quickest and most fish-friendly way to go. it's infinitely better for the fish and more accurate than messing around with a tape measure in the boat; it's not as fish-friendly as measuring in the water, but clearly more accurate. since it floats, i'm going to start trying the bump-board in the water and maybe i'll get the best of both worlds.
all of which begs the question: at what point do i stop wanting/needing a "classic" out-of-the-water picture of every fish and stop wanting/needing that 1/4" measurement? is it fish below a certain size? is it after catching a certain number? where's that point for me? for you?
the psychological term is "self-actualization", the idea that some people reach their full potential in various aspects of their life. not everyone reaches this level.
when it comes to catching muskies, Rob and Doug and others like them clearly have done so. and i think of the iconic picture of Jack Burns water releasing a big fish, he was there too.
so is favoring and encouraging those kinds of pictures the next step in a person's personal move towards self-actualizing as catch-and-release anglers? what's it take to let go of that desire to "own" the fish in a picture and with a number?
| |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I think everyone goes through "stages" in what is or isn't important to them in regards to hunting and fishing.
I also think that it has a lot to do with the surrounding culture of the group of fishermen or hunters.
If the majority of anglers didn't take in the boat measurements and photos of very many, or any fish, than it would be much more accepted in the angling community.
But since it is a minority of anglers that walk that line it's looked as odd, ecentric and over the top.
If you put muskie angling on a scale of 1 to 10. With 1 being not fishing at all, and 10 being killing the fish, than every angler would fall somewhere on that scale.
Where you do or don't fall on that scale is up to you. Fishing handling isn't black and white. You can't think that because we fish with hooks that nothing else matters. The idea that if you take extra precautions with fish after you hook them is hypocritical is also ridiculous.
If any of you have seen the movie "Strange Brew", there is a scene where they are driving the van and the brakes go out. The one brother than says "well there is no point in driving now" and takes his hands off the steering wheel.
That's kind of like saying because you put a hook in the mouth what's the point of worrying about any addes stress due to handling. Ridiculous.
JS | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | john skarie - 8/12/2010 8:10 AM
I suppose maybe you need a study to find out if hitting yourself in the privates actually hurts?? I mean there isn't one out there, so maybe it really doesn't??
This is exactly the mentality that proves fish handling and awareness of said handling is going backwards from where we once were.
I guess once you put a hook in a fish after that nothing makes any difference. Maybe on my next catch I'll just take the fish home with me to show the kids and then drive it back to the lake to release it.
JS
This is the kind of holier than thou attitude that turns people off. Where did this analogy come from? Pretty ridiculous imo.
I agree with Matt and BN.
I fail to see how a bumpboard hurts a fish. In fact since I got one it has helped me get the fish back faster. My fish are out of the water for about 30 seconds, in that time frame I get two quick photos and and a quick measurement. Most people are measuring a fish whether they have a bumpboard or not. The measuring process goes much quicker with a bumpboard, so to me they are a good tool to have in your boat.
While I respect the approach that RK, DC and JS take with their fish, they have to realize that they are in a place that most anglers will never get to....I know I won't.
Implying that anglers like myself, BN or Matt D don't care about the fishery as much as you guys because we take a quick photo with a quick measurement is absurd.
Are you guys paying attention to what is going on with Project Noble Beast????
Year one seemed to show that there is zero difference in the stress level of the fish if you water release or you have a quick release that includes time for a picture and a measurement. I suggest you contact Sean Landsman and ask him about what he has learned in the study so far. | |
| | |
| Hey guys,
Not to worry. In about 8-12 years we"ll have mainstream cameras that will automatically measure the fish. Whether you choose to pull it out of the water is up to you. | |
| | |
Posts: 580
| RK_unlogged - 8/11/2010 11:29 PM
I just have a hard time fitting a bump board into that equation. I think you can measure a fish in ways that are safer for everyone (you and the fish) that might be a little less accurate but a lot faster and easier on the fish. I get right back to what matters more - the fish, or how exactly how big it is.
I kind of thought the "if you're so worried about them don't use hooks" argument would come up before long. It always seems to. But I don't buy the reductio ad absurdum. I prefer single treble bucktails and two treble plugs when I can because they make fish easier to unhook, and I love spinnerbaits, but of course some fish will get hooked badly. I had one last week. It happens. If you start talking about not using hooks, you aren't talking about fishing anymore. I like to fish.
."
I dont think its reduction ad absurdum...not saying that you should stop fishing if you care so much for the fish. You and Doug J offer a fair point that any unnecessary stress through measuring and photographing is potentially harmful to the fish. But I think its a fair point to consider that, in the context of all that we do to potentially traumatize a fish, focusing on the bumpboard as the big problem is a bit of missing the forest because of the trees.
Maybe I use a bumpboard differently than what youre envisioning? I use it like Brad and Troy describe. After unhooking the fish in the net (and while the fish and net are submerged), the fish is taken from the net directly to the bumpboard, which is already laid out and is wet. The fish goes to the bumpboard for probably somewhere around 3-5 seconds. Like you, Im really not that concerned about getting an exact measurement to the closest , its just a quick eyeballing of the nearest inch, after which the fish is held up for a quick photo, and then immediately back into the water. The entire out of water time is 15-30 seconds, and typically closer to 15 than 30.
I guess Im just having some trouble wrapping my head around your premise: the concept of dire harm occurring to the fish during those 15 seconds or so, where the fish is laid flat on a wet board (weight evenly distributed, and slime coating not disturbed) for a couple seconds and then quickly lifted for a photo before returned to the water.
Granted, not all anglers handle the fish this way and an example of this is from another thread on this board where the fish was out of water for 3+ minutes for measuring on a bumpboard and photos. So, from that perspective, I totally get where you seem to be coming from. But, is it the bumpboard itself that is problem in that equation? Or, is it the fact that the anglers didnt know how to correctly use it? I'd say it's the latter.
One last thought. Im local to Madison and in the local Muskies Inc. club. A handful of PIT tag scanners were given out to club members, including myself. The club is working with the local WDNR biologists to track and record growth of stocked fish, and one of the conditions of use of the scanner is that ALL muskies caught need to be measured on a BUMPBOARD. Obviously, if the local biologists thought that wed be killing the fish through use of the bumpboard, Im guessing that they wouldnt have had that requirement. Maybe the bumpboard isn't such an evil thing?
Anyways, I truly do applaud your ethics as well as Doug J and others, and I certainly mean no disrespect whatsoever. I guess that I would just say that maybe instead of condemning the bumpboard, its more important to educate anglers of the proper use of it, (i.e., I dont think that Im acting unethically toward the fish the way that Ive been using it).
Edited by Matt DeVos 8/12/2010 9:12 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 785
| While I agree it's best on the fish to not take it out of the water, I also agree it's best to not fish for them at all as driving hooks through their beak and fighting them to exhuastion is probably the hardest part on the fish if the measurements and photos are done in a quick and efficient manner. My step dad got this 53 earlier this year. You better believe we got a measurement! (btw in the pic he had just layed it down, we did get it slid all the way forward for the actual measurment for the fish police out there). I think it's great that the seasoned veterans are to the point that they don't get pics of every fish... but it seems hypocritical that it's OK to measure an over 50 but not a 40?? Afterall isn't an over 50 the more valuable resource?? If our main concern is to preserve the fish wouldn't we worry less about a 35 and be super careful with a 55? I catch between 15-30 fish a season. I want the memories to look back on in years to come. Take a measure and a quick pic if it's important to you. If it's not than don't...
Andy
Attachments
----------------
HPIM1103.jpg (92KB - 204 downloads)
HPIM1109.jpg (109KB - 198 downloads)
| |
| | |
| how bout this for thought???
How many fish have been saved by bumpboards??? Fish have always been measured since who knows when. Now since boards have become popular, how many fish are thriving or alive, because of being laid on a wet board vs. the bootom of a boat or on the carpet etc?? Bump boards have become very popular and more and more people are buying them. Which tells me less and less people are laying them in the bottom of the boat or on the carpet etc. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I don't think anyone said that using a board or taking pictures means you don't care.
What it really boils down to is that we can all agree that less handling is less stressful. That is a point that can't be argued.
What you take from that statement, and how it changes or doesn't change your fish handling procedures is up to you.
As fishermen we all put hooks in fish, what happens after that is where the individual angler takes his own path.
I'm sure 30 years ago all muskie anglers that were promoting C&R were considered fanatics, eccentric and "holier than thou" types. People don't think that now.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 565
Location: WI | Todays reality is that more people are getting into muskie fishing b/c they want to catch big fish and when they catch them, they want to know how big it is. That said, it does seem like a lot of people want to learn how to catch them w/o thinking about what to do when they do get one. It annoys the crap out of me watching big fish being caught on the offseason t.v programming and they take the fish out for the camera and are like "lets get them back quick!" Then the next magazine comes out and they have a shot of the fish that clearly wasn't on the program and the length. Why they don't take the time to show the world how to quickly and properly handle the fish, I do not know. | |
| | |
Posts: 224
Location: Madison | john skarie - 8/12/2010 8:40 AM
If you put muskie angling on a scale of 1 to 10. With 1 being not fishing at all, and 10 being killing the fish, than every angler would fall somewhere on that scale.
Where you do or don't fall on that scale is up to you.
I think this is an excellent point. I haven't fished locally since June because water temps are too high, but when I start again I will continue to take photos and measure fish on bump boards. That being said, I am glad for guys like Rob K and Doug that are farther along the scale than I am. I'll never catch as many muskies that I'm going to want to stop measuring them, but I'm glad there are guys out there who are doing that. And I'll take as much care as I can with the fish I do catch.
Also, measuring fish on a bump board floating in the water is pretty easy and quick assuming you're not drifting fast. I've done it a number of times. | |
| | |
Posts: 32892
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Absolutely is up to each and every one of us.
I hand landed nearly every fish I caught from about 1994 to a couple years back. Have some large pliers to do water release, if the hooks will allow it safely, but will Frabill the fish if I think she will need special attention to get the hooks out these days, as I don't care to end up with them in me anywhere and I'm not as agile as I once was...damage to the tendons in the dominant hand slows me down a bit. I don't measure many any more, especially if they are under the mid 40" level, which equates for my water to a 50 on Doug's.
Doesn't mean I think no one else should. Please learn what it takes to exercise reasonable caution with fish handling, water release those fish you wish to, and enjoy your growth and experience in the sport. Those of you reading this thread who are relatively new muskie anglers...listen to the folks who tell you what tools you will need, and go out and buy them. Do your best to release your fish as quickly as is possible while enjoying and sharing the experience through images taken quickly and efficiently, and we've moved forward...not backward, in our conservation efforts as a group. Seems to me that's the vast majority here.
Those who have reached the level where no fish is photographed except for the giants, good for you...but remember from whence you came. The 'newbies' have to start somewhere. Please respect that.
30 years ago I was definitely promoting catch and release. I wasn't considered a fanatic or eccentric, probably because many of us moving in that direction at the time did our best to do so without condemning out of hand all other points of view.
Catch and Release, The Future Of Fishing IS In your Hands. | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Has anyone ever considered how your handling of fish may be affecting your total catch rate?
I have found that by getting better and better at catching and releasing fish quickly and efficiently, I have been able to put more and more Muskies in the net each year. When the fish are brought into the net quckly and released safely, the lure is back into the water after the next fish much sooner. Then my lure is out there again to catch another fish.
Years ago we used to spend ten, sometimes fifteen minutes celebrating a fish. While we didn't keep the fish out of the water for more than 15 or 20 seconds and we always got good releases, we didn't get our lures back into the water very quickly. That limited our ability to catch muliple Muskies on a given day. Since I've learned to "process" a fish quickly, typically under two minutes from hook-set to release, I have had many more multiple fish outings. I cannot even count how many times I have caught mutliple fish within minutes of each other in the past five years. More often than not, if I catch one, I catch two or more.
What I have learned is that there is often a 15-30 minute feeding window and one often catches a Muskie at the start of it. If you spend that entire time taking pictures and celebrating, you will only catch one fish. If you get the fish unhooked, measured, photographed, and released quickly so it takes right off, you can get your lure back into the water for the next fish.
My best results following this method was three Muskies that were 48, 48, and 49 in under 20 minutes. I was by myself and so I just got them them into the net quickly, unhooked them, did a quick water measurement (which probably wasn't that accurate), and sent them on their way. The 49 might have been closer to 50, but what does it really matter? I would never have caught her had I messed around setting up the camera with the tripod and taking pictures of the first 48, (which might have really been 48.5 or even 49). That takes to long by yourself and I didn't want to pass up chances at more fish and the quick releases paid off.
My plan these days is to catch as many Muskies as I can when I can. So, I use spinner baits that allow for very easy and quick unhooking, get them to the net quickly, take a quick water measurement, and then get them released as soon as possible. I only take pictures if someone is with me or if the fish is very large. If all goes like clockwork, the fish usually give me a shower as they take off. (I like that.)
I must admit that I'm not always quite so fast when we aren't seeing any other fish. But when the fish are thick in an area, I'm going to get them released as soon as possible.
Just something to think about.
Edited by Herb_b 8/12/2010 1:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Just recently got into the bump board game and I must say I think it is a much easier option, besides being more accurate I find the whole measuring process more smooth and the whole process takes less time overall. As far as hot handling fish, well...not all of us have the means to live on Lake of the Woods and all of the great fishing waters of MN that produce big fish. There's still something of a thrill to be able to hold, grab, pickup a big fish for that handful of times every fishing season, see no need to try and take that away from people.
I also want to chime in on the "water" measuring stick. I know full well this device was made with good intentions to measure your fish while in the water...Well, besides being difficult to use and inaccurate, I can assure you this stick is often being used for other means of measuring. That would be either laying the fish on the bottom of the boat with the stick next to it or more commonly a vertical hold of the fish being held next to the vertical stick. I have seen this done MANY times and often by good sticks who catch a lot of fish. Do I think they killed the fish by doing this? No I don't...but I certainly think the board would be a better way to go for the reasons mentioned. | |
| | |
Posts: 366
| I do believe that where Rob, Doug, Dan, Steve, and most other multiple decade muskie fishermen are is where most muskie fishermen are progressing to if they’re fairly involved with the muskie society discussions/education/experience. I know I have progressed to that state of release mentality and behavior, if not to the same degree, but in proportion to my own comparable experience level. I try to hand-land most sub 40”ish fish of my own, but won’t think twice about putting the net under a 44”+ muskie. I don’t measure and/or take photos of every fish anymore either, as I have 100+ muskie pictures and I simply don’t often take the time to look back at every 38”er I’ve caught, and when I do it doesn’t matter if it had actually been 37” or 39”.
That being said the decision is never certain is almost always situational. There are plenty of times where depending on where the hooks are, it is much easier for me and easier on the fish if I net it to work on it. It is more difficult for me to hang on to a fish by hand and keep its head underwater without the net supporting and securing the rest of the fish if I have to do anything more than grab a hook with the pliers and give it a quick jerk. I often struggled, and spent way more time necessary and putting undue stress on fish, because I was trying to do what I thought would be best for the fish at the time and tried to water release it. Sometimes you just can’t tell when a hook position will give you extra difficulty than it appears. At the same time it is very easy for a fish to give you more trouble in the net if it won’t stop trashing and rolls up and pins itself. What is better, a fish that won’t stop thrashing and rolling in the line as you try and hang on to it by the leader or a pair of pliers on the bait, or a fish that thrashes and rolls in the net pinning itself. It is purely situational. It takes time and experience to recognize which scenario will be best for the fish, and even then you aren’t always correct with decisions, but anglers need to keep reevaluating the situation as things happen.
If the release was very quick and easy and the fish is big, or very nicely marked then I’ll take a photo and/or a measurement. But if it was a struggle and I had to spend time cutting hooks and such then often I won’t take it out of the water even if it is big and/or especially pretty. IF the decision has been made to photo and/or measure a fish then the net and bumpboard process that most people have described here and that I use is in my opinion the best way for most anglers to do so accurately and QUICKLY. While I certainly respect Rob, Doug, and the others’ mentioned opinion on this matter, and in all things muskie, in my opinion and experience I can’t vilify correctly used bumpboards when a measurement matters to the angler. The floating ruler has a typical accuracy of +/-2” imho, especially if trying to measure and hold the fish by oneself. We all know that there is a big difference in 46” versus 50”, more so if it might be your first. When you get above four foot accuracy should matter, maybe not to everyone, but there certainly is a big difference in those two measurements to me. It takes a lot more time and handling of the fish to try and keep it straight and in place for a floating tube ruler than it does to set one on a wet board. Maybe someone can figure out a way to attach some bicycle inner-tube like pontoons to bumpboards so that they can be stable and used in the water more easily. But until then, then never taking the fish out of the water is usually best, but if you want a photo and an accurate measurement then the wet bumpboard is the way to go in my opinion.
Muskie fishing is so saturated with exaggeration and fish stories that to be honest sometimes I feel embarrassed to be associated with it. I’m not say that every person who muskie fishes is full of B.S., but it has been an underlying aspect of our sport for so long that many people don’t think any differently. There are many times when I wouldn’t even tell people I’m a fisherman let alone a muskie fisherman, because I don’t want to be involved with ridiculous stories and assumptions. Granted I could care less about whether a fish is 40” or 43”, but when someone shows me a picture of a mid-40” and says it is 52”, it is sort of insulting. I know it is silly to take offense to such things, but I love muskie fishing and I take it fairly seriously, and the lying and exaggeration is a part of muskie fishing that I’d love to see become a thing of the past just like shooting or thumping fish on the head. Sometimes it is purely done from ignorance and innocence on a beginner’s part, but trying to teach a newbie to be accurate within the safety of the fish is fairly important.
A newbie trying to be accurate with a floating ruler, usually means that they lay the fish on the carpet and put the ruler next to it, because guess what a newbie is going to be uncomfortable trying to hold a big fish with sharp teeth in the water with a floating tube at the same time. Even I have that trouble. Now if you want to try to get rid of measuring all together, so that fish go back in the water as quick as possible then that is another argument entirely. And, it has as likely a chance of happening, as my wish to end the B.S. I guess, not if everyone one day has auto-measuring cameras. But for newbies, or anyone else for that matter, I think the net and bumpboard is the safest for the angler and the fish to get an accurate measurement and a photo of their experience. Eventually, if an angler catches enough, they’ll get to the point of foregoing measuring and photos, but I wouldn’t suggest that someone just coming into the sport should do so. Maybe in many years that will become, “the earth is flat” mentality, but that is beyond my foresight. I certainly do agree that given the situation, not every fish needs to be measured and/or photographed, but that will be up to the angler to decide at the time being.
Ryan
| |
| | |
Posts: 183
Location: Grand Forks ND | From reading this thread you would think musky fishing is almost a thing of the past and every fisherman is killing every fish they catch.
From what I have seen, however, musky fishing is better than ever regarding size(at least in MN), and a large majority of musky fisherman are releasing true giants and even possible state records. Dead fish don't grow, so that must mean a lot of people are releasing fish and these fish are surviving.
I know we have to keep on top of it because of the new people entering the sport, but I think the respect given for the safe handling and releasing of musky has never been better!
Edited by MuskyManiac09 8/12/2010 4:22 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 366
| Agreed. I see how the need for so many to measure to the 1/16” of an inch and photo every single fish can have a fairly detrimental affect on fish in some degree. But, to say that bumpboarding fish is a step back towards thumping and keeping most fish, is in my opinion a bit off base. The discussion of most techniques or practices should be about the best way to do them, because if you get into a discussion about what is and isn’t necessary in muskie fishing, then you must admit that the whole process is unnecessary. Otherwise, where else does the conservation mindedness stop? You could probably catch a muskie or two on a bait without hooks, and I’d probably try to if I had no alternative, but does any one really want it to be that way just to minimize human impact? When discussing specific situations you can just about always come up with the best process to do something, but for generalities there are two many situational differences and personal preferences and/or abilities that determine the possibilities.
BTW, in case I haven’t made it clear, I started this thread to discuss inaccurately REPORTING measurements, not inaccurately taking measurements, but that is the way the cookie has crumbled.
Ryan
| |
| | |
Posts: 551
Location: Columbus, Georgia | lambeau - 8/12/2010 9:25 AM
the psychological term is "self-actualization", the idea that some people reach their full potential in various aspects of their life. not everyone reaches this level.
when it comes to catching muskies, Rob and Doug and others like them clearly have done so. and i think of the iconic picture of Jack Burns water releasing a big fish, he was there too.
so is favoring and encouraging those kinds of pictures the next step in a person's personal move towards self-actualizing as catch-and-release anglers? what's it take to let go of that desire to "own" the fish in a picture and with a number?
Very well put by lambeau. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i noticed that when topics get more foolish, words get bigger and more poetic, posts get longer and spelling gets poorer ... as a general rule.
carry-on | |
| | |
Posts: 366
| We can't all be a master of the one-liners, Sled. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Ok, I got two things out of this thread.
It is clear that the back side of dougj's head is STILL his best side, though if he doesn't take the clippers to that head of his, even that slightly anvil shape, will NOT be enough to keep his hat on when he sticks the boot to the Triton!
The other thing(?)..............no, no, I guess there was only one thing...
| |
| | |
Posts: 723
|
heres my assumptions"
guys that dont like to measure or photo have obviously had some bad stuff happen
while doing so. dropping one, killing one, whatever, but i dont think theres ever been a muskie that went from the net, saw the bumpboard and croaked because of it. im pretty sure it has something to do with corkscrewing, line wrapped around it, hooks tearing flesh, eyeballs getting poked out, Boga grips locked down tight as a fish goes absolutely nutzo in a vertical position (see pic below) certain theres many a dude that has taken pics, checked the pics with the gill grip firm on, half the fish scraping the outdoor menards carpet, crappie floppin around. ive seen plenty of fish passing occur as well, guys that take a pic, hand the fish off to a buddy, they get into their best timberlake poses, check the pics again. toss the fish over. This is on a 50" limit water too. my biggest concern, get rid of the vertical holds!
I hear a million guys preach proper C&R, tools, techniques, minimal handling time,
so why am i still seeing instances like this every year?
is it the newbies? the old timers? is it guys who lose all composure when they bag a fish, they shake so bad, and instantly forget their boat is still in gear doing a half circle?
You guys want to help fish survive, teach everyone you possibly can safe, fast, sensible C&R. Dont tell anyone that by them taking a quick pic of the quarry theyve been after, is prolly gonna die if they do. Dont measure that fish since its just going to die if you do. That is the message im picking up that youre throwing down. stupid. between all the friends n familly ive been with, ive seen one actually die on the spot. it was hooked in the gills. weve been doing the CPR thing since i started 17yrs ago and a very high percentage of fish soak us on their departure.
yes ive layed them in the boat, yes ive measured them in the net, yes ive not measured them if they were small, i do what i feel is best at the time. given the circumstances at hand. #*^@ right im taking a pic if i spent $600 in gas food, beer, and redbull to catch that fish this month.
Like said before, those are the memories one can reflect on. alzheimers doesnt discriminate, traditions are passed down to the younger generation. and I can tell you with certain, theres not many death pics getting passed around these days, no gunny sack stories, .22's being carried in the boat, or mutliple muskies lined up on a wood pole.
We have definitely come a long way with these fish. Let it be. Dont trash our addiction with musky porn. what else are we gonna argue about when someone posts a pic of a 53, that really looks like a 58.
I love pictures, theres pretty fish, and dude, look at how ugly this mofo i caught the other day is! seeing is believing.
I suppose when someone catches the next world record, they should do a water release on her?
this is why i take pics.
(number 10 for me that day..JPG)
Attachments
----------------
broken jaw.JPG (54KB - 238 downloads)
brokeback3.JPG (150KB - 236 downloads)
noras1.JPG (87KB - 241 downloads)
stephz.JPG (101KB - 235 downloads)
number 10 for me that day..JPG (108KB - 236 downloads)
| |
| | |
| nothing wrong with taking a picture, and you're right that educating about how to handle fish safely is an ongoing need. i sure don't judge anyone else's decision to take a picture of every fish they want - i love fish pictures. and measuring fish doesn't return us to the dark ages! i'm just starting to think that it might be worth bump-boarding more fish in the water as well as asking myself, "do i really need an out-of-water picture of this particular fish?"
Edited by lambeau 8/13/2010 8:15 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | what is kind of backwards if you stop to think about it is, the guys that are advocating water release or no pics are still taking pics of the biggest ones right? the 50 plusers..well aren't those the ones that possibly could have more harm done to them by taking them out of the water and possibly vertical on the way to the bumpboard or pics? as someone else pointed out the smaller fish probably are much less effected from handling and holds than the big ones... if anything is backwards it's that...biggest point to this whole thread is that the newer guys in the sport should take away a few things...get a big net, get the proper release tools and a bumpboard, leave fish in the water for unhooking and have out of the water at most a minute..not 3 ....
Edited by BNelson 8/13/2010 8:25 AM
| |
| | |
| do you find the big fish are actually easier to handle?
it's counterintuitive, but i find that i'm more likely to have trouble grabbing or dropping a 30-35" fish; they seem to jump around more, i'm more anxious about getting hit by the gill rakers because of the small space for my hand, and it's much easier to get a good jaw grip on the big fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 723
| i would agree bigger fish are much easier to handle. regardless of the extra weight n length you are picking up, they are a lot more docile.
but, the heavier they are, the harder they fall. picking them up and not supporting the fish entirely, you can rip muscle tissue that we dont see. yes, their organs and the such from vertical hold.
i witnessed a heavy 37" pike get picked up by the back of the head, not the old finger in the eyes hold, but right behind the gills, that fish's gill plates ripped about a half inch from one lil wiggle. it was dinner anyway, but i still see other guys hold muskies like that, Or like Jomusky said, they dont gill grab them at all.
they hold the fish with both arms just supporting it, but as soon as it flops, that baby it gone!
| |
| | |
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Good analogy Brad. How many times I have heard "I didn't want to risk a shot at that distance, but if it had been a big buck I sure would have!" Counter intuitive, but we just can't get over ourselves. | |
| | |
Posts: 69
Location: Pittsburgh | sworrall - 8/11/2010 6:27 AM
As with many subjects here, it isn't necessarily what is said, it's how it's said.
I was wondering if someone could teach me how to judge the weight of large fish from poor photos you see my baby brother keeps showing me these photos of large fish saying they weight alot. Know I could call my brother a liar right out of the gate because he doesnt live close but I dont because he is bigger and younger and he visits. I know he lies because sometimes fish that he says weigh less sometime look bigger and vice a versa. Now I have asked him to post some of his many pictures.And his reply is why dont you wear your obama shirt to a tea party. so if any one could help me matter of factly with this dilemna I would greatly appreciate it. | |
| |
|
